United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Service
Southern Forest
Experiment Station
New Orleans,
Louisiana
General Technical Report
so-117
September 1995
A Regional Framework of Early
Growth Response for Loblolly
Pine Relative to Herbaceous,
Woody, and Complete
Competition Control:
The COMProject
James H. Miller, Bruce R. Zutter, Shepard M. Zedaker,
M. Boyd Edwards, and Ray A. Newbold
SUMMARY
A common study design has been installed at 13 locations throughout the
Southeastern United States to track the growth of loblolly pine (Pinus tueda L.)
plantations established with four different competition control treatments: no
control (only chopping-burning), woody control for 5 years, herbaceous control
for 4 years, and total control after site preparation. This regionwide investigation is known as the Competition Omission Monitoring Project, a coordinated
study with the Auburn University Silvicultural Herbicide CooperativeXStudy
HB4F). Data summaries for each location are presented for loblolly pine growth
and competition intensities for the first 8 years. Approximately 10,000 loblolly
pine seedlings have been measured annually. Responses from this network of
studies should be useful in assessing and reporting relative growth of loblolly
pines for other studies and operational plantings. These data sets should also
be useful for future forest growth modeling efforts.
A Regional Framework of Early Growth Response for
Loblolly Pine Relative to Herbaceous, Woody,
and Complete Competition Control: The COMProject
James H. Miller, Bruce R. Zutter, Shepard M. Zedaker, M.Boyd Edwards,
and Ray A. Newbold
INTRODUCTION
Numerous studies have been established during the
past 20 years to examine the influence of herbaceous
and woody vegetation on the growth of loblolly pine
(Pirtus taeda L.) across the Southeastern United
States. However, few studies can be compared due to
differences in site growth potential, treatment timing
and duration, experimental design, and pine density,
to list a few. Researchers in forest vegetation management need a logical context wherein crop-tree
growth at various sites can be compared to levels of
competition or to a maximum potential growth response. To assist in developing this comparison network, a group of investigators established a regionwide
study to determine the standard growth response of
loblolly pine to four competition situations (Miller and
others 1987, 1991). The four treatments, or competition situations, are as follows:
1. No control, with a mixture of woody and herbaceous competitors;
2. Woody control, leaving herbaceous competitors;
3. Herbaceous control, leaving woody competitors; and
4. Total control, devoid of all competition.
In this simple framework, arborescent hardwoods and
nonarborescent shrubs are combined as woody competition; forbs, grasses, vines, and semiwoody (e.g., blackberry) vegetation comprise the herbaceous component.
The four treatments used in this study are “extremes” because each focuses specifically on complete
component or complete competition control compared
to no control. These four treatments encompass the
full range of competition conditions that are common
to young loblolly pine plantations. Partial competition
control treatments, which are used in operating plan-
tations, lie among these extremes. The growth response to partial control can be gauged relative to the
results of these extreme treatments reported here. This
comparative gauging should be most useful in research
reporting of partial control treatments.
One objective of the Competition Omission Monitoring Project (COMProject or COMP) investigation
is to establish a network of growth responses for
loblolly pines when these four treatments are used on
major soil types across the region. The other objectives of COMP are to compare the relative importance
of herbaceous vs. woody competition as they affect the
growth of loblolly pines on the wide range of sites
across the region, to identify the major herbaceous and
woody competitors and document early succession, and
to study the interaction of competition and pine growth
on insect and disease infection. These last three objectives have been or will be addressed in other reports from this research group (Miller and others 1987,
1991, 1995).
Mean pine growth response and competition response by treatment that has occurred at 13 plantation locations are presented in this report. For those
readers interested in treatment comparisons and the
errors associated with treatments, please refer to the
other papers in this series or contact the authors
(Miller and others 1987, 1991; Zutter and others, in
press).
METHODS
Study Sites
A common study design was used at 13 plantation
sites across four physiographic provinces-the Lower,
Middle, and Hilly Coastal Plains and Piedmont-in
James H. Miller is a research ecologist at the Forestry Sciences Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forest Experiment Station, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849; Bruce R. Zutter is a research associate at the School of Forestry, Auburn
University, Auburn, AL 36849; Shepard M. Zedaker is a professor at the Department of Forestry, Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA
24061; M. Boyd Edwards is a research ecologist at the Georgia Forestry Center, U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Dry Branch, GA 31020; Ray A. Newbold is an associate professor at the School of Forestry, Louisiana Tech
University, Ruston, LA 71272.
1
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Tennessee, and Virginia (table 1; fig. 1). Prior to plot
establishment, pine plantations or mixed pine-hardwood stands were harvested in late 1982 or in 1983.
Site preparation was by roller-drum chopping and
prescribed burning at 10 study locations. A shear, pile,
and burn method was used at Counce, Tennessee,
which resulted in some topsoil removal and displacement into the windrows. A complete harvest of
fuelwood and pines was used at Atmore, Alabama; the
Lower Coastal Plain site near Pembroke, Georgia, was
simply rebedded after a wildfire destroyed a young
plantation that had been previously windrowed. A
naturally regenerated plantation site has also been
established using these treatments and is reported
elsewhere (Cain 1991).
To characterize the soils at each location, USDA Soil
Conservation Service soil surveyors or forest industry soil surveyors examined each site (table 1). To further characterize the soils, samples were collected at
each location in April 1984. From each plot, 20 soil-
tube samples were extracted from three depths: 0 to
6,6 to 12, and 12 to 24 inches. For each plot, samples
were combined by depth, thoroughly mixed, and stored
in a cold room until analysis. Samples were then
air-dried and crushed to pass through an 80-mesh
sieve. Duplicate samples were analyzed for available
phosphorus (P), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), and
potassium (K) after extraction with a Mehlich I solution (Mehlich 1953). Organic matter determinations
were according to Jackson (1958), and pH determinations used a 1:l soil-to-water mixture and a pH meter.
Soil texture was determined by the hydrometer
method. A summary of the results of these analyses is
presented in table 2.
Plot Layout
Four blocks of 4 plots each were established at 11 of
the 13 locations using a factorial, randomized, complete-block design. At Pembroke, Georgia, a fifth block
d
l
Study location
Qure l.-COMP plantation study locations relative to physiographic provinces.
2
Table 1 .--Description of study sites
SOll
location
senes
Flatwoods Coastal Plain
Mascotte
Pembroke, GA
Lat. 32-l 1’N.
Long. 81”34’W Pelham
Mlddle Coastal Plarn
Orangeburg
Batnbridge. GA
Lat 30’51’N.
Long. 84’35’W Esto
Cahaba
Lrberty. MS
Lat. 31”90’N.
Long 90”5O’W. Ariel
Soil
classification
Site
index’
Previous
stand
HaNeSt
Site
preparation
Regeneration
Sandy, siliceous, Thermic
Ultic Haplaquods
Loamy, siliceous, Thermic
Arenic Paleaquults
65
6-year-old slash
pine planation
Burned by wildfire
N/A
Rebedded 1983
Machine planted
7byllR
Winter 1983-84
Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic
Typic Kandiudults
Clayey, kaolinitic, Thermic
Typic Kandiudults
88
Mixed loblollyl
shortleaf pine hardwood
Wmter
1982-83
KG blade,
chop 8 burn
June 1983
Hand planted
9bysn
Jan. 1984
Fine-loamy, siliceous,
Thermic Typic Hapludults
Coarse-silty, mixed
Thermic Fluvenic Dystrochrepts
77
Mixed loblollyl
shortleaf pinehardwood
April 1983
Chop 8 bum
Summer 1983
Hand planted
9by9R
Feb. 1984
Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic
Typic Kandiudults
59
Slash pine
plantation
with hardwoods
Sept. 1983
Whole-tree
chipped at
Hand planted
9bysn
April 1984
Atmore, AL
Lat. 31”90’N.
Long. 86”44’W.
Orangeburg
Liverpool, LA
Lat. 30”49’N.
Long 90”47’W.
Tangi
Fine-silty, siliceous, Thermic
Typic Fragiudults
63
Naturally regenerated loblolly
pine-hardwood
WtnterSummer 1983
Chop B burn
Summer 1983
Hand planted
9by9ff
Feb. 1984
Jena, LA
Lat 31’40’N
Long. 92”5O’W.
Ruston
Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic
Typic Paleudults
75
Mixed pinehardwood
Fall 1983
Chop 8 bum
Summer 1983
Hand planted
9by9R
Jan. 1984
Cowarts
Fine-loamy, siliceous, Thermic
Typic Kanhapludults
56
Lobloliy pine
plantation
Spring 1983
Chop & burn
Late spring earty summer
1983
Hand planted
9by9ft
Jan. 1984
Loamy-skeletal, siliceous,
Thermic Typic Hapludults
Coarse-loamy, siliceous, Thermic
Fragiaquic Paleudults
62
Mixed loblolly/
shortleaf pinehardwood
June 1983
Chop 8 bum
Summer 1983
Hand planted
9by9ft
Feb. 1984
Hilly Coastal Plain
Tallassee. AL
Lat. 32”26’N.
Long. 85”55’W.
Saffell
Warren, AR
Lat. 33’37’N.
Long. 92’51’W. Stough
haNeSt
Counce. TN
Lat. 35’11’N.
Long. 88”91’W.
Silerton
Fine-silty, mixed, Thermic
Typic Hapludults
58
Natural mixed
pine-hardwood
Wtnter
1982-83
Shear, pile 8
bum windrows
August 1983
Hand planted
9by9ft
April 1984
Arcadia, LA
Lat. 32”39’N.
Long. 92”55’W.
Sacul
Clayey, mixed, Thermic Aquic
Hapludults
55
Natural loblolly
pine-hardwood
1983
Chop & burn
Summer 1984
Machine planted
7by10A
Jan. 1985
Clayey,
Typic
Clayey,
Typic
kaolinitic, Thermic
Kanhapludults
kaolinitic, Thermic
Kanhapludults
65
Natural mixed
pine-hardwood
Spring 1983
Chop IL burn
Spring 1983
Hand planted
9by9fl
Jan. 1984
Clayey, kaolinitic. Thermic
Rhodic Kandiudults
79
Natural mixed
pine-hardwood
Oct. 1982
Chop 8 burn
Summer 1983
Hand planted
9by9R
Feb. 1984
Clayey, kaolinitic. Thermic
Typic Kanhapludults
Clayey, mixed, Thermic Typic
Hapludults
Fine, montmorillonitic, Thermic
Typic Hapludalfs
50
Natural mixed
pine-hardwood
June 1983
Chop & bum
Summer 1983
Hand planted
9bysfl
Feb. 1964
Piedmont
Cecil
Camp Hill, AL
Lat. 32’48’N.
Long 85’31’W Pacolet
Monticello, GA
Lat. 33”17’N.
Long. 83”41’W.
Davidson
Appomattox, VA
Cecil
Lat. 37”20’N.
Long. 78”48’W. Cullen
lredell
’ Determined from 9th year height on no control treatments and Burkhart and others (1987) curves for site index at 25 years.
3
Table 2.--Soil propeffies for the three sample depths at each study location
Depth
in
Ca
Mg
____________~a&
Pembroke, GA
O-6
6-12
12-24
per
K
P
PH
OM’
Sand
Silt
Clay
Texture
class
mi//ion ______-__-
65
43
41
14
8
7
14
8
7
0.4
.3
.3
4.3
4.5
4.6
3.1
2.1
1.7
88
88
88
6
6
6
6
5
6
Sand
Sand
Sand
Bainbridge. GA
O-6
375
6-12
270
12-24
332
69
130
139
31
32
25
.9
.2
.2
5.8
55
5.4
1.0
1.2
0.7
86
81
78
5
4
2
9
15
20
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Liberty, MS
O-6
6-12
12-24
384
172
231
52
37
54
50
31
22
1.4
.4
.3
5.8
5.5
5.4
2.0
0.7
0.4
75
65
65
20
24
23
5
11
12
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Atmore, AL
O-6
6-12
12-24
146
175
182
34
50
72
19
17
16
.l
.O
.O
5.3
5.4
5.4
2.1
1.5
0.9
70
64
57
14
14
13
16
22
30
Sandy loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay loam
Liverpool, LA
O-6
6-12
12-24
232
218
89
60
65
231
39
38
30
.3
.2
.I
5.2
5.2
5.2
3.0
2.4
0.7
39
37
33
49
51
41
12
12
25
Loam
Silty loam
Loam
Jena, LA
O-6
6-12
12-24
487
375
396
75
158
246
45
36
32
.4
.I
.O
5.3
5.2
5.1
2.7
1.3
0.8
55
48
45
34
32
28
11
20
27
Sandy loam
Loam
Loam
Tallassee, AL
O-6
6-12
12-24
124
144
124
17
20
22
17
17
16
1.8
.8
.4
5.2
5.4
5.1
1.3
0.9
0.6
83
77
73
11
13
12
6
10
15
Loamy sand
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Warren, AR
O-6
6-12
12-24
909
520
427
191
169
222
72
50
44
2.2
1.0
.6
5.7
5.2
5.0
3.7
2.2
1.6
59
59
55
30
28
27
11
12
19
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Counce, TN
O-6
6-12
12-24
95
103
95
65
87
130
39
42
40
.l
.I
.l
4.9
4.9
4.9
2.2
1.3
0.9
9
6
9
54
53
49
37
41
42
Silty clay loam
Silty clay
Silty clay
Arcadia, LA
O-6
6-12
12-24
_.t
__
__
___
__
__
__
_-
__
__
__
4.9
4.6
4.4
2.4
1.5
1.1
56
52
47
31
30
28
13
18
25
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Loam
287
153
180
41
43
63
44
29
28
.4
.l
.O
5.4
5.3
5.3
2.1
1.0
0.6
72
65
57
17
16
15
11
19
28
Sandy loam
Sandy loam
Sandy clay loam
Monticello, GA
O-6
808
6-12
413
12-24
471
143
129
171
82
65
61
1.1
.l
.I
5.8
5.5
5.5
3.6
1.4
0.9
64
54
45
20
21
20
16
25
35
Sandy loam
Sandy clay loam
Sandy clay
Appomattox, VA
O-6
468
6-12
266
12-24
322
62
87
130
63
63
75
.a
.2
.l
4.9
4.7
4.8
3.6
1.2
1.4
42
34
30
34
28
24
24
38
46
Loam
Clay loam
Clay
Camp Hill, AL
O-6
6-12
12-24
‘OM=organic matter
‘Measurement of these soil properties not made at this location.
was included, and at Bainbridge, Georgia, a completely
randomized design was used. Treatment plots were
generally 0.25 acre in size, and interior measurement
plots were 0.09 acre. Precisely measured planting
spots on a 9- by 9-ft spacing were used at all but the
machine-planted locations at Pembroke, Georgia, and
Arcadia, Louisiana (table 1). This spacing resulted in
538 trees per acre (565 and 622 trees per acre at the
machine-planted locations), with 49 measurement
pines in the interior plots and 2 border rows surrounding the measurement plots.
At most sites, two regraded 1-O loblolly pine seedlings were planted at each spot, 10 to 12 inches apart.
Either genetically improved or Livingston Parish,
Louisiana, seedlings were used. After the first growing season, double-planted seedlings were thinned to
one per spot using randomly generated codes to maintain the original population characteristics. Double
planting was used to minimize variations in initial
survival and the resulting long-term variation that
occurs with unequal stocking. Only single seedlings
were planted at Pembroke, Georgia, Arcadia, Louisiana, and Liberty, Mississippi, where adequate survival
resulted in stocking levels comparable to the other
locations. Measurement trees were permanently
tagged. Volunteer pines were repeatedly removed from
all locations except Appomattox, Virginia, where Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana Mill.) was left on woody
competition plots because it is considered to be a common woody competitor in that area.
Establishment of Competition Situations
Four treatments, or competition situations, were
established and maintained as follows:
No Control Resulting in Mixed HerbaceousWoody Competition.-After initial site preparation,
no further treatments were applied except for tree
injection of scattered, large, residual hardwoods using triclopyr (Garlon@).
Woody Control Only Resulting in Herbaceous
Competition.-Both foliar and basal sprays, as well
as basal wipes, were used to control hardwoods and
shrubs during the first 5 years. A single preplant and
multiple postplant applications per year were made,
usually with directed sprays of glyphosate (Roundup@),
triclopyr, and picloram (Tordon@) or basal wipes of
triclopyr and diesel fuel. After planting, only herbicides with no soil activity were used to minimize any
potential damage to herbaceous plants and measurement pines.
Herbaceous Control Only Resulting in Woody
Competition.-Preemergent applications of sulfometuron (Oust@ at 3 to 6 oz/acre) were applied annually
for the first 4 years to control forbs and grasses. The
most effective rate, having the least pine toxicity, was
determined through screening trials on nearby sites
at most locations during the year prior to establishment. After the first year, either glyphosate
(Roundup at 18 oz/acre) or oxyfluorfen (Goal@ at 0.6
gal/acre) were commonly added to the tank mix with
sulfometuron. One to five times during a growing season, shielded, directed sprays of glyphosate (a
Roundup 2-percent solution) were applied to perennial grasses, resistant forbs, and vines. At Bainbridge,
Georgia, sethoxydim (Poast@ or Vantage@) was broadcast sprayed for grass control in the second year.
lbtal Control Resulting in Elimination of All
Competition.-A combination of the treatments discussed above were used to control both woody and
herbaceous competition.
Complete eradication of woody or herbaceous components was rarely achieved, especially in the first
and second years. But significant reductions were
made, and desired competition situations were obtained, with persistent applications at most locations.
Herbaceous control treatments were applied for 4
years, whereas control levels persisted for several more
years, even to year 8 on some sites. Woody control
treatments were applied for 5 years, although the completeness and duration of control varied by location.
Minimal crop-pine damage was observed with these
treatments.
Measurements and Analyses
Pine size was determined immediately after planting by randomly selecting 100 seedlings (50 at
Appomattox, Virginia) and measuring groundline diameter and height for each. Seedling pines were then
measured annually in the dormant season for total
height (nearest 0.1 ft) for years 1 through 8, and
height-to-live-crown was measured in years 5 through
8. The height-to-live-crown was measured along the
bole to the first branch with live foliage. Groundline
diameters were measured in years 1 through 5, diameters at 6-inch height were measured in years 2
through 5, and diameters at breast height (d.b.h.‘s)
were measured in years 3 through 8-all to the nearest 0.1 inch. Stocking records of surviving trees were
maintained for the first 8 years. Approximately 10,000
pine seedlings were measured annually.
Basal area was calculated by summing the stem area
at breast height for all surviving trees. An individual
tree volume index for years 3 through 8 was estimated
using (d.b.h.2/144 x height) 13-a modified conical projection-and summed for all surviving trees. Basal
area and tree volume indices were expanded to an acre
basis by multiplying by the appropriate expansion
factor for the measurement plot.
Within each interior measurement plot, three 9- by
18-ft sample plots were systematically established,
5
with the corners at pine planting spots-a O.Ol-acre
sample per 0.09-acre measurement plot yielding a 12percent sample. Annually in September of years 1
through 5 and in year 8, all woody rootstocks taller
than 0.5 ft were recorded by species (genus for some
shrubs) and height class. Rootstocks were those judged
to originate from the same central root system with
one or more stems. Height classes were delineated by
1-R intervals up to 12 ft and then by 5-ft intervals. In
years 5 and 8, all arborescent hardwood rootstocks
exceeding 5 ft in height within the measurement plots
were counted, and d.b.h.‘s were measured, yielding a
basal area estimate.
For cover estimates, the three 9- by 18-ft sample
plots were halved to yield six 9- by 9-ft subplots per
measurement plot. Annually in September for years 1
through 8, cover was visually estimated within each
subplot for the herbaceous life-forms and for any “no
cover” that lacked any vegetation above the area. The
herbaceous life-forms were as follows: grasses and
grasslike plants, forbs, vines, and semiwoody plants
(e.g., blackberries and dewberries, Rubus spp., and
St. John’s wart, Hypericum spp.). Starting in year 2,
estimates were added for “total woody cover” and for
“planted pine” cover. All cover estimates were grouped
into one of the following percentage classes (range): 0,
2 (1 to 51, 10 (6 to 15),20 (16 to 25), 30 (26 to 35),40
(36 to 45),50 (46 to 55), 60 (56 to 65), 70 (66 to 75), 80
(76 to 85), 90 (86 to 951, 97 (96 to 99), and 100. This
grouping permitted the more accurate cover estimates
that can be made at the extremes.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Initial seedling sizes are presented in table 3. The
COMP growth response values presented in tables 4
through 16 represent biological standards for loblolly
pine on these specific soil-sites, relative to their competition levels that are presented in tables 17 through
42. Greater levels of herbaceous control were evident
in the spring and early summer immediately after
broadcast herbicide applications. To assist future modeling efforts, table 43 presents mean total height of
6
the tallest 100, 200, 300, and 400 pines per acre by
treatment for each location at year 8.
Sizes and growth increments of pines grown completely in the absence of competition (total control)
approach as absolute a value as there is in forest vegetation management relating pine growth to site productivity Less absolute because of varying levels of
herbaceous competition, but a useful benchmark, are
growth-response values on plots with woody control.
The pine growth with the other two treatments-no
control and herbaceous control-provide an estimate
of pine-growth loss relative to these “benchmarks”
from given densities of hardwoods on the sites.
Studies of pine growth with herbaceous control on
similar soil sites can be compared to growth results
from total control and woody control (maximum herbaceous cover with no woody plants) for any period
between years 1 and 8. Either actual or relative growth
increases can be used for making comparisons with
other plantings. Volume index is the best integrating
value for comparisons, but heights and diameters can
also be used. It is recognized that diameters respond
more, proportionally, to competition control than
heights do, whereas heights can even be increased by
severe woody competition (Miller and others 1991).
The large numbers of plots and trees in this study result in small sampling error for the means. In effect,
researchers using data from a smaller trial for comparisons could often assume that the values reported
are “true” values and could test for differences using
the trial data errors alone.
For comparison of woody control treatments or herbicide treatments that control both woody and herbaceous plants, comparisons with the total control would
be best for judging the pine-growth response relative
to a potential response with no competitors. For comparing plantings and plots where spacing is other than
538 trees per acre, the average individual tree-growth
response may be used for the first few years. The average tree response can be obtained by dividing the
volume index per acre by the stocking. The proportional gain on COMP sites can also be used to judge
pine-growth response for other forest cultural treatments (e.g., disking, subsoiling, fertilization, etc.) from
similar sites.
Table 3.--Initial pine groundline diameter and height at each location
Location
Groundline diameter
Mean*
Pembroke, GA
Bainbridge. GA
Liberty, MS
Atmore, AL
Liverpool, LA
Jena, LA
Tallassee, AL
Warren, AR
Counce, TN
Arcadia, LA
Camp Hill, AL
Monticello, GA
Appomattox, VA
___.._________
0.11
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.10
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.17
0.16
0.12
0.11
0.11
Std deviation*
Inches-___-_______
0.03
0.02
0.05
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.02
Height
Mean*
Std deviation*
__.____________Fe&___________
0.67
0.52
0.69
0.59
0.47
0.61
0.48
0.60
0.55
0.60
0.61
0.46
0.40
0.14
0.13
0.15
0.18
0.12
0.11
0.16
0.18
0.14
0.20
0.15
0.11
0.13
*Means and standard deviations based on 100 seedlings (50 seedlings at Appomattox,
Virginia_) randomly selected across all plots at a given location.
7
Table 4.--Pembroke, Georgia: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
______________________________ _____ -__________ ____
5
6
7
8
/n&es _______-_ _______ ____ _____ _ ______--__-_----_______--_
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.0
1.2
2.1
2.4
1.5
1.8
3.0
3.4
2.2
2.8
4.0
4.6
2.9
3.7
4.8
5.3
--*
__
__
__
___
___
-_
-_
-_
-_
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
___
0.7
0.9
1.7
2.0
1.3
1.6
2.7
3.1
1.9
2.4
3.6
4.0
2.6
3.3
4.3
4.8
___
__
__
__
__
___
-_
__
-_
Diameter at breast height
__
No control
__
Woody control
__
Herb control
__
Total control
____----____--Total height
No control
1.6
1.8
Woody control
Herb control
2.3
2.1
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
0.5
1.1
1.7
2.4
2.8
3.5
__
0.7
1.6
2.4
3.3
3.7
4.5
__
4.1
1.5
2.5
3.2
3.9
4.7
__
4.5
1.7
2.7
3.6
4.3
5.1
____________-___I-__--~------ ______ Feet _____________________-__-_____ __1_______-___-__--3.9
4.5
6.2
6.2
6.1
7.3
10.4
11.0
9.1
11.1
15.3
16.3
11.6
14.9
18.9
20.4
15.2
19.5
23.0
25.3
17.7
22.7
25.7
28.3
__
2.8
28.7
30.2
33.1
__
-_
__
2.6
3.4
4.2
__
__
-_
__
3.3
4.5
5.7
__
__
-_
_4.3
6.1
7.0
__
__
__
_3.5
6.1
7.7
________________________________________-___- Tees per ace ________________________________________________
535
534
533
536
535
526
531
529
533
526
531
529
__________-____________________________________
533
522
523
525
533
522
521
525
533
522
521
525
531
522
517
523
5.9
7.9
9.1
10.4
527
519
515
523
F12/acE _____________________________________________________
__
__
0.9
4.3
10.0
19.3
24.4
38.4
__
__
2.0
8.2
18.0
33.1
41.7
60.1
__
__
7.8
19.5
31.1
44.3
49.7
65.0
__
__
9.1
22.9
38.4
54.5
60.2
77.0
_________________________________________________- Ff/acE ______________________________________________________
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
3.1
7.4
38.0
44.9
19.8
44.2
135.5
167.0
57.3
125.4
264.4
347.1
139.3
292.0
456.2
606.4
202.5
426.9
568.8
747.1
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
402.3
765.5
868.6
1,115.0
Table 5.--Bainbridge, Georgia: pine growth response values for the titst 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Inches _______________________ ______________________________
_______________________I________________~~~~-------
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.5
2.5
1.7
1.7
2.3
4.0
3.1
3.2
3.7
5.5
4.0
4.2
4.4
6.5
-*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
-_
__
-_
Diameter at B-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.8
0.8
1.3
2.1
1.4
1.5
2.2
3.4
2.4
2.7
3.3
4.7
3.3
3.8
4.2
5.7
__
___
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at breast heiaht
__
__
0.6
No control
__
__
0.7
Woody control
__
__
1.4
Herb control
__
__
1.9
Total control
____________________________--___________- Feet
Total height
4.1
No control
1.5
6.5
4.1
Woody control
1.5
6.6
6.0
Herb control
2.0
9.5
Total control
6.7
11.0
2.0
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
1.6
2.5
3.5
3.9
4.4
1.8
2.9
3.9
4.2
4.8
2.5
3.3
4.1
4.3
4.8
3.3
4.2
5.1
5.3
5.9
_________________________________________________________
11.1
11.3
14.8
17.5
__
15.1
14.7
19.5
22.6
24.5
23.5
28.6
32.6
20.1
19.1
24.4
28.0
28.5
27.2
32.1
36.6
-_
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_________-_________-~-~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~
538
538
538
538
535
535
535
532
530
535
535
535
_____________-______-_--~~______l_____~~
2.8
5.2
7.8
11.6
_2.0
6.4
4.2
10.7
3.9
7.6
10.6
15.1
__
3.5
7.9
11.3
16.5
Tees per acre _______________________________ _________________
532
527
524
535
532
532
527
527
521
535
535
532
Ff/acm _________________________________
519
516
532
532
513
513
524
521
____________________
__
__
1.6
8.3
19.7
38.0
44.8
58.1
__
__
1.7
9.9
25.6
46.5
52.9
69.5
__
__
6.2
18.2
33.3
50.7
55.0
66.6
__
__
11.6
32.2
53.3
78.1
83.3
99.6
__________________________-______________________ @/acre ____________________________________________________
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
5.9
5.7
26.9
57.3
44.7
51.3
120.3
245.2
138.1
169.1
286.5
521.6
346.7
393.0
544.9
943.4
489.4
546.5
690.1
1,169.0
734.2
832.2
938.1
l(574.0
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
9
Table 6.--Liberty, Mississippi: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
____ __- ___________ -_____ _________ ----___
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Diameter at breast height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
5
7
8
Inches __ _______ ________________________ ____ ___________ ____
0.4
0.5
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.8
2.3
1.3
1.7
2.9
4.0
2.0
2.9
4.2
5.7
2.9
4.1
5.2
6.9
--•
__
__
__
__
__
__
_-
__
__
__
__
__
0.6
0.8
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.5
2.6
3.6
1.8
2.5
3.7
5.1
2.5
3.7
4.6
6.2
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
0.6
0.8
1.8
2.0
1.2
1.7
2.7
3.4
1.9
2.7
3.5
4.5
2.7
3.9
4.3
5.5
3.5
4.9
5.1
6.1
4.3
5.7
5.7
6.8
1.6
1.8
2.4
2.4
3.7
4.2
6.3
6.2
6.7
7.4
11.2
11.3
10.3
11.5
16.8
17.4
14.0
16.0
21.9
22.7
18.5
21.2
27.1
28.6
22.1
24.7
31.0
32.7
27.0
30.1
35.5
37.4
__
__
__
3.3
5.4
8.3
10.6
__
2.3
3.6
5.6
8.3
__
__
__
4.5
8.7
12.4
13.9
__
__
__
1.9
5.8
10.7
13.0
_______--______-_-__ Trees per acre -_________________________________________
453
447
433
431
392
387
384
381
458
458
458
458
467
461
450
450
--_-----_ ____-- ___ _________ -____ _____ Fp/..cm
428
414
392
381
379
379
379
376
458
455
455
453
450
445
445
442
_______ ____-___ _______ _____-_______________________
1.1
4.3
10.0
19.2
29.5
41.2
__
1.7
6.5
16.1
33.3
50.9
68.1
__
8.6
19.7
32.8
49.3
66.9
83.9
__
__
10.5
28.7
50.6
75.1
94.2
113.2
___-- ____ _ _________ _ ________-_--___ - ________ Ff/acm ------_ ___________ ____ _______________________________
__
-
__
__
__
__
__
_-
3.7
6.1
42.8
54.2
21.7
36.0
146.7
220.4
67.5
118.5
317.4
503.6
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable
10
6
167.9
315.2
586.9
929.9
297.4
557.6
908.2
1,335.o
to trees in this age class.
494.6
894.8
1,302.O
1,825.O
Table 7.--Atmore, Alabama: pine growth response values for the rkt 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
____________________________________________________ Inches _____________________-____-___________--_--_________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.4
2.4
1.6
2.1
2.4
4.0
2.4
3.3
3.5
5.3
--*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at B-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.7
1.0
1.1
2.1
1.3
1.8
2.0
3.4
2.0
2.7
2.9
4.6
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
1.2
1.9
2.0
3.2
2.2
3.0
2.9
4.3
2.7
3.7
3.5
5.0
3.3
4.3
4.0
5.6
10.4
12.9
14.0
18.5
15.1
18.2
19.3
24.1
17.7
21.6
22.1
28.6
21.3
24.6
24.9
30.9
Diameter at breast height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No Control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
0.1
__
__
0.3
__
__
0.3
__
__
0.8
_____________~ .__________________-___________
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.3
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.3
4.3
5.1
5.5
7.4
0.6
1.0
1.1
2.1
_______ Feet
7.7
9.3
10.2
13.5
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
___
____________________________________________
1.6
2.7
1.7
3.2
1.8
4.1
1.5
3.6
Tmes per acre _-___-______________
4.5
5.1
6.0
6.6
6.2
7.1
8.1
9.3
__________________________
535
535
530
530
530
527
524
521
521
510
508
508
505
505
494
494
497
486
480
472
472
469
458
455
519
519
516
516
516
513
508
508
__________________________________________________ Fp/acre ______________________--________________________-_
-_
__
0.1
1.6
__
__
0.5
3.7
__
__
0.4
3.9
-_
__
2.7
13.6
___________________________________________________ FtJ/acm
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
0.3
1.4
1.3
11.0
6.4
17.9
20.1
89.6
5.2
15.1
23.4
34.1
10.9
26.1
38.5
52.1
11.5
24.5
33.7
44.1
31.7
54.1
72.8
90.9
_____________________________________________________
26.8
69.0
78.6
265.7
107.8
218.1
223.3
577.3
189.6
375.2
348.6
911.5
327.5
568.0
509.9
1,226.0
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
11
Table 8.--Liverpool, Louisiana: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Year
Measure
and
treatment
1
2
3
4
_______________________________________-_-____--
5
6
7
/n&es _______________________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.9
2.7
1.5
2.1
2.9
4.3
2.2
3.0
3.9
5.6
--*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at L-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.1
1.5
2.2
1.3
1.8
2.5
3.7
1.8
2.6
3.3
4.7
__
___
__
__
__
__
_-
__
__
__
__
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
_0.5
__
-_
__
0.8
__
__
0.5
1.5
__
__
0.9
2.1
___________________________________________________
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
2.5
2.9
3.2
3.5
4.1
4.7
6.4
7.1
1.1
1.8
2.7
3.3
1.6
2.5
3.4
4.1
2.4
3.3
4.1
4.6
3.3
4.4
5.2
5.7
____________________________________________________
Feet
6.6
7.5
10.9
12.1
9.7
11.1
15.3
17.0
13.0
14.7
19.9
22.2
16.5
18.9
24.2
27.5
21.1
23.5
28.6
32.0
__
__
__
__
2.6
4.2
5.2
6.9
__
__
__
2.3
4.1
5.0
6.5
__
__
__
2.9
5.4
7.9
10.5
__
__
__
1.7
4.8
7.8
11.0
__
________________________________________________ Trees per acre _______________________________________________
538
535
532
538
535
535
532
524
519
532
530
521
______________________________________________--__
532
532
532
527
527
535
535
532
530
530
519
516
516
516
510
521
521
521
521
513
Fp/acm ____________________________________________________
__
__
__
1.3
__
__
__
2.9
__
__
1.2
7.5
__
__
2.7
13.5
__ _______ __ ______________ _______ ____-----_______--- Fe/acre
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
4.1
9.5
4.4
12.4
39.6
75.5
4.7
11.2
8.9
20.1
18.8
34.5
31.8
57.9
____________________ ____
22.8
51.1
134.3
241.5
70.7
143.6
319.3
562.7
23.9
34.6
36.9
51.4
51.8
63.9
79.6
95.1
______________________________
184.7
324.4
575.2
951.6
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
12
8
334.5
546.3
831.2
I,31 5.0
Table 9.--Jena, Louisiana: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Year
Measure
and
treatment
1
2
4
3
_____________________________________________________
5
Inches
7
6
8
_______________________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
1.1
1.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
3.0
3.1
2.8
2.6
4.5
4.8
3.8
3.7
5.7
6.1
-*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
Diameter at B-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.9
0.8
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
2.7
2.9
2.3
2.2
3.8
4.1
3.2
3.0
5.0
5.2
__
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
3.2
3.0
4.5
4.7
3.6
3.6
5.1
5.4
4.5
4.5
5.6
5.9
19.0
18.1
24.9
25.9
22.5
22.3
28.7
29.8
26.0
25.2
32.1
33.5
Diameter at breast height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
1.6
2.4
0.8
__
__
1.4
2.2
0.7
__
__
2.7
1.6
3.7
__
2.8
1.7
4.0
_________----- ____________-___________----- ______ Feet ___________
1.6
1.5
1.8
1.8
4.0
3.5
5.2
5.1
7.4
6.6
10.0
10.1
11.2
10.3
15.3
15.5
14.5
13.7
20.0
20.6
__
__
__
3.6
5.1
6.6
8.3
__
__
__
__
3.3
4.5
5.7
7.3
__
__
__
3.3
6.4
9.1
11.6
__
-_
__
__
3.1
6.5
9.3
12.2
_______________________-________-____ ____ _ Tmes per acre ________________________ _______________________
__
502
499
480
475
488
488
480
475
513
510
505
505
516
516
516
513
___________________________________________________ Ff/acre
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
2.1
1.6
8.0
8.6
7.1
6.0
20.4
23.3
16.4
13.4
39.7
46.2
. .
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
__
__
-_
8.1
5.5
37.5
41.0
38.7
31.0
140.7
163.4
475
475
475
475
453
450
450
450
505
505
505
505
513
513
513
513
_____________________________________________________
27.9
23.9
57.2
65.4
35.5
33.0
73.3
84.9
56.1
51.0
88.9
100.3
244.9
201.8
623.8
743.5
361.4
332.5
918.2
1,103.o
656.7
578.0
1,241 .O
1,463.0
o__..,
112.3
88.4
349.7
421.6
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable
to
trees in this age class.
13
Table 1 O.-Tallassee, Alabama: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
________________________-____________-_______
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
5
6
Inches ____________________-______
7
8
______ _ _______________
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.8
1.3
2.1
1.2
1.5
2.1
3.6
1.8
2.3
2.8
4.7
2.7
3.4
3.6
5.8
__*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
0.5
0.6
1.1
1.7
1.0
1.2
1.8
3.1
1.6
2.1
2.5
4.1
2.3
3.0
3.1
5.2
__
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
Diameter at breast height
__
0.2
1.3
0.7
2.4
No control
2.8
3.4
__
0.2
1.0
1.8
Woody control
3.1
3.7
4.4
__
__
0.8
1.5
2.1
Herb control
2.9
3.3
3.8
__
_1.3
2.5
3.5
4.7
5.1
Total control
5.7
____________________-_-__~~~~~~-~~~~~~
Feet ________------_________________________-______
Total height
No control
1.1
2.7
4.4
10.3
7.3
13.6
17.0
20.0
Woody control
1.1
4.7
11.0
14.9
2.8
7.9
18.6
22.4
13.8
17.3
Herb control
1.4
4.5
7.1
10.8
20.7
23.3
1.5
5.0
13.7
17.7
22.4
26.5
Total control
8.8
30.1
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control,
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
1.1
1.0
1.8
0.9
2.8
2.4
4.1
3.6
4.3
3.8
5.8
5.9
acre ____---_____-____ __________________
532
519
513
524
505
499
527
519
513
535
532
530
_____-____________~_~________________I__------
508
505
502
502
497
491
486
483
505
505
497
497
524
521
521
521
_______________________________________________
513
499
510
527
Fp/acm
__
_0.2
1.8
5.6
17.0
__
0.3
3.1
9.6
27.9
__
2.4
7.4
15.0
26.8
__
5.7
19.3
36.1
63.2
______-_____~___---_~~~~~~~~~~~~ __________ Fp/acm _________ ___________________
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
__
0.5
0.8
9.0
22.8
6.5
11.6
40.6
116.7
27.4
48.7
100.8
277.2
105.2
186.7
221.8
612.0
22.7
33.4
37.2
52.7
32.7
42.8
75.8
93.1
___________________
174.1
309.8
318.7
864.8
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
14
5.8
5.0
7.1
7.9
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
____________--~-__-_~~~~~~ _ _ _ _ _ _ Tmes per
300.9
519.1
468.9
1,207.O
Table 11 .--Warren, AtIransas: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
____________________~~~~~~~__________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
5
6
7
8
Inches ____________________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.8
1.5
1.7
1.3
1.5
2.9
3.1
1.9
2.1
4.0
4.5
3.1
3.6
5.5
5.8
--•
__
__
__
__
__
__
_-
__
__
__
__
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.5
0.6
1.2
1.3
1.1
1.2
2.4
2.6
1.5
1.7
3.1
3.5
2.5
3.0
4.6
5.0
__
__
__
-
-_
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
____.
__
___
__
0.3
0.5
1.1
1.2
0.7
1.6
0.9
2.0
1.8
3.1
2.1
3.3
_____-_ Feet _____
2.5
3.1
4.2
4.5
3.3
4.0
4.9
5.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.8
3.1
3.9
4.1
5.1
5.8
8.0
8.1
7.7
8.5
12.1
12.3
11.2
12.6
17.1
17.6
14.2
15.8
21.1
21.7
18.9
21.5
27.7
28.6
__
__
__
Diameter at breast height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
____________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4.1
4.8
5.7
5.9
.___ - _____
21.6
24.6
30.1
31.1
__
1.7
3.0
4.1
1.8
__
2.8
4.3
1.1
__
3.7
5.9
__
0.9
3.4
5.4
Trees per acre ________________________________________________
5.7
6.4
9.6
9.4
530
530
527
527
527
527
527
527
535
532
532
530
530
527
527
527
532
530
530
530
527
527
527
527
521
521
519
519
519
519
519
519
________________________~~________-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ff’/acm _____________________________________________________
__
__
0.6
2.1
8.5
20.3
33.8
51.4
__
__
0.9
2.7
12.9
29.4
47.1
68.9
__
__
4.2
10.4
28.2
51.9
72.1
93.7
__
__
5.3
13.8
32.1
57.8
80.8
101.5
____________________~~~~~~__-~~~~~~~~~------------Fe/acre -----_______________________________________________
__
__
__
___
__
__
__
1.8
2.5
16.3
21.1
8.6
11.3
57.1
78.2
45.5
74.7
212.1
249.3
133.6
208.1
476.7
544.9
292.0
449.1
865.0
999.2
497.9
740.7
1,221 .o
1,362.0
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to treeS in this age class.
15
Table 12.--Counce, Tennessee: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
I
2
3
4
______________________________--____-___-______
5
6
7
/n&es ___-__-______________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.6
1.6
2.3
2.5
2.4
2.5
3.4
3.7
3.4
3.5
4.5
4.9
--*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at B-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
___
__
0.7
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.3
I.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.9
3.1
2.9
3.0
3.9
4.2
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at breast height
__
__
No control
0.4
1.0
1.7
2.5
3.4
__
__
Woody control
0.4
1.0
I.8
2.6
3.5
__
__
Herb control
0.6
1.4
2.2
3.2
4.2
__
Total control
__
0.6
1.4
2.4
3.5
4.5
______________________________-_____---________ Feet -_____________________________________________________
Total height
1.0
2.8
No control
5.2
7.8
10.4
13.5
16.8
1.0
2.9
5.3
7.9
10.8
14.0
17.4
Woody control
1.0
2.9
5.9
9.1
12.3
16.1
20.3
Herb control
1.0
2.8
Total control
5.8
8.9
12.6
16.7
21.3
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
538
535
535
538
535
535
538
532
516
535
524
519
_________________________________________-___--
535
535
516
519
Ff’/acm
535
535
535
535
532
532
532
532
516
516
513
513
516
516
516
516
________________________________________________
__
_0.7
__
__
0.6
__
_1.4
__
__
1.5
_______________________________-___________-______
3.1
3.3
6.2
6.4
8.7
19.4
34.7
47.8
9.9
21 .o
37.5
52.3
14.9
30.8
50.0
64.7
16.9
35.8
58.0
76.2
_____________________________________________________
___
__
__
__
__
__
__
1.7
1.6
4.2
4.3
11.4
12.3
26.2
26.3
41.2
47.9
82.0
95.2
2.0
2.2
1.4
0.8
116.6
130.3
218.8
260.8
3.3
3.3
3.1
2.6
22.0
22.5
25.6
26.7
__
__
__
__
F?/acm
1.0
1.2
0.6
0.4
4.0
4.2
4.7
5.2
__
__
256.3
286.7
441.2
533.1
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
16
8
4.8
5.1
5.4
5.5
459.9
513.4
713.8
877.0
Table 13.--Arcadia, Louisiana: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
________ ___- ___________ ___________________-______
5
6
7
Inches _____________ __________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.3
1.7
1.0
1.3
2.1
3.0
1.6
2.2
2.9
4.3
2.7
3.5
4.5
6.3
-*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
0.5
0.6
1.0
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.8
2.6
1.4
1.9
2.6
3.8
2.3
3.1
4.0
5.7
__
__
-_
__
__
__
__
__
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
___
0.1
__
__
0.7
__
__
1.1
__________________________-__________________________
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.4
2.3
2.6
3.5
3.9
4.0
4.6
7.1
8.1
0.6
1.0
1.6
2.3
6.5
7.9
11.1
13.0
8
__
_ -__
-_
__
__
__
__
1.4
2.3
3.2
3.8
2.0
3.0
3.9
4.5
2.6
3.5
4.2
4.7
3.7
4.8
5.5
5.9
Feet _____________-_______-______-_______________________
9.8
11.8
15.5
18.1
13.6
16.0
19.7
22.8
18.2
20.2
24.4
28.1
23.0
24.0
28.4
32.3
__
__
__
__
2.4
2.8
4.2
6.4
__
__
__
2.2
2.9
4.3
6.6
__
__
__
__
__
2.7
4.6
7.2
9.8
__
__
__
1.5
3.5
7.3
10.4
___-___________________--________-___-__ Trees per acre ________________________________________________
539
526
526
526
523
523
523
517
539
534
525
520
517
517
517
517
537
521
508
508
502
497
497
497
537
532
532
530
530
525
525
525
_______________-______-____________________
Ff/ac,e ___-___________________________________________
__
__
__
__
__
0.2
__
__
1.9
__
__
4.2
__________________________-____-________________
__
__
__
-
__
__
__
__
__
1.0
6.5
16.0
1.4
6.7
16.4
31.4
44.1
3.4
12.6
26.9
45.9
60.1
7.7
20.9
36.1
51.0
63.3
16.3
41.7
66.5
87.5
101.0
Ff/acm ___________________________________________________
4.5
13.8
39.5
94.2
32.1
71.9
147.5
327.7
103.9
198.1
318.0
654.1
259.0
417.4
553.6
1,059.o
444.2
642.3
795.5
1,404.o
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
17
Table 14.--Camp Hill, Alabama: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
4
_______________________________________--_____
5
6
7
8
/n&es ___________________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.8
1.1
1.4
1.6
3.4
1.7
2.2
2.4
4.8
2.6
3.4
3.3
6.1
--•
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.5
0.9
1.2
1.4
3.0
1.5
1.9
2.0
4.3
2.2
2.9
2.6
5.3
__
__
__
__
__
__
_”
__
__
__
__
Diameter at breast height
No control
__
Woody control
__
Herb control
__
Total control
_____-________Total height
No control
1.1
1.2
Woody control
1.2
Herb control
Total control
1.4
“”
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
“”
__
“”
0.2
0.8
1.5
2.3
3.0
0.3
1.0
1.8
2.8
3.5
__
0.6
1.3
1.9
2.6
3.1
__
1.5
2.8
3.8
4.8
5.4
__
____ ____-__ ____ __-___ _____ --_- Feet ___- _____ -___ ______ ___ __________ __ __________
3.6
4.2
3.6
6.0
_____
2.7
2.6
3.7
4.8
22.5
23.8
24.7
32.5
4.5
4.7
6.4
9.0
11.1
11.6
13.8
18.3
8.1
8.5
10.6
14.5
14.9
15.7
17.7
23.2
18.3
19.3
20.8
27.5
__
__
__
__
__
________-______________________________-_____
2.1
3.4
5.0
1.3
2.5
4.2
2.8
4.9
6.7
__
1.4
4.4
7.4
Tmes per acre _--~____________________________________
532
521
510
521
513
502
538
516
513
530
521
519
___________________________________-___-____-_
505
499
505
513
Ff/acm
“”
“”
“”
__
502
502
502
502
499
494
491
491
505
505
502
499
508
505
499
497
-_____________________________________________
0.3
2.3
6.9
15.9
26.0
38.1
__
__
0.6
3.3
10.2
22.6
36.0
50.3
__
1.4
5.5
11.5
20.6
30.0
39.4
__
__
__
6.7
22.6
41.6
65.6
82.2
99.8
_______________________________-___________-___FtVacre - - - - _-___-___________________________*____
“”
“”
“”
__
__
__
“”
__
__
__
0.8
1.5
4.5
27.5
9.1
14.3
28.2
144.8
35.6
57.5
74.6
332.0
108.3
165.3
169.2
662.3
213.1
316.7
287.5
976.5
383.1
538.5
444.4
1397.0
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
18
7.1
6.3
9.0
10.6
Table IS--Monticello, Georgia: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
4
3
________________________________________________
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.3
Diameter at g-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.5
__
__
___
__
__
-_
__
Diameter at breast heiaht
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
5
6
7
a
inches _______________________________________________________
2.3
2.6
2.3
3.0
3.7
4.1
3.6
4.4
5.1
5.5
--*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
___
__
__
1.1
1.5
2.0
2.3
1.9
2.5
3.2
3.5
3.0
3.8
4.4
4.8
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.5
1.9
2.1
2.0
2.6
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.8
4.3
4.6
4.0
4.6
5.1
5.3
4.7
5.3
5.6
5.9
13.3
15.7
17.2
17.7
17.7
20.2
22.2
22.8
21.9
24~3
26.5
27.1
26.7
29.8
31.7
32.4
I.8
”
.
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to live crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
2.7
3.3
3.5
3.9
5.1
6.2
7.1
7.5
9.1
10.8
12.5
12.9
__
__
__
__
“1.
1.4
3.2
4.9
a.1
1.2
3.0
4.9
a.0
1.5
4.0
6.3
10.3
1.1
3.2
5.7
9.5
Tmes per acre ___________________________-_________________
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
_____________________________________________
527
519
519
505
499
499
510
499
499
519
510
508
__________________________-________-_--_______
519
519
519
516
513
499
499
499
499
497
499
499
499
499
499
508
508
505
505
505
Ff/acm __________________________________________________
__
__
0.4
3.5
__
__
1.3
6.7
__
__
2.4
10.9
__
__
3.1
13.3
___________________________________________________
Ff/acre
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
1.2
4.3
9.0
11.8
15.5
35.1
63.3
79.0
12.6
29.6
46.9
63.1
19.7
41.5
60.5
77.5
27.0
52.8
73.2
89.7
31.7
59.5
80.8
97.6
_____________________________________________________
76.6
140.1
207.4
248.4
234.1
370.8
514.5
589.0
452.1
645.9
844.2
942.2
737.1
1,006.O
1.239.0
1,365.0
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
19
Table 16.--Appomattox, Virginia: pine growth response values for the first 8 years
Measure
and
treatment
Year
1
2
3
______________________--___________--
4
_______
5
6
7
8
/n&es _____ __________ ______ _______------_--------_--------_
Groundline diameter
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.6
1 .o
0.8
1.3
1.1
1.9
1.5
2.5
1.9
3.3
1.9
3.1
2.3
4.2
-*
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
-_
__
__
__
Diameter at 6-inches
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.6
1.3
2.2
1.6
3.0
1.6
2.7
1.9
3.7
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
Diameter at breast height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Total height
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Height to Live Crown
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Stocking
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Basal area
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Volume index
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
0.5
__
__
__
1.1
__
__
0.9
__
__
1.8
___________________________________--_-__________ Feet
0.9
1.9
2.4
1.7
2.8
3.9
1.3
1.9
2.6
2.6
3.6
4.9
___________-________________________________________
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
8.5
10.9
10.0
13.5
2.3
2.4
2.8
2.8
3.4
4.1
4.3
5.3
5.7
7.2
7.1
9.2
12.1
14.5
13.0
17.2
14.2
18.0
16.1
21.2
2.7
4.4
3.0
5.4
17.8
22.4
19.4
25.4
__
__
__
__
2.0
3.1
5.2
6.3
__
__
__
1.2
2.0
3.9
5.2
__
__
2.3
3.7
6.6
7.6
__
__
__
__
1.1
1.9
5.2
6.7
_______________________________________--___- Tmes per acre ______-_-______ _______________________________
513
508
508
510
439
425
521
508
480
499
458
455
__________________________________-________---_
497
491
486
477
469
425
425
425
425
425
461
445
431
417
401
455
455
455
453
453
Fe/acre
_____________________________________________________
__
__
__
1.0
2.9
11.4
16.6
21.1
__
__
__
3.3
7.4
18.6
37.9
48.0
__
__
__
2.5
5.2
11.3
19.6
24.1
__
__
__
9.0
18.3
34.2
61.1
74.0
_____________________________________________-___ Fp/acm -____--___________________________________________
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
__
3.0
11.5
8.9
39.0
12.1
38.1
26.3
111.4
71.8
123.5
72.3
258.0
109.7
306.9
153.8
545.9
*Blank fields indicate that a particular response value was not applicable to trees in this age class.
171.1
480.1
225.6
813.1
Table 17.--Pembroke, Georgia: percentage ofplant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___________________________________________________
17
3
5
2
24
5
7
2
63
64
61
21
87
84
76
35
____________________-_____-_____________________pine
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
___
__
2
4
5
9
2
3
15
23
__
__
__
__
25
1
19
2
72
76
23
11
71
92
10
1
7
12
28
60
9
16
34
66
15
31
44
77
19
50
53
85
Woody cover________________________________________________
33
0
21
0
_____________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb Ccntrol
Total control
~over__________________________-___________--_____--
6
7
22
41
_______________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
No Cover_________________________________________________
3
5
1
4
2
3
1
6
__*
9
4
10
__
11
5
10
25
1
19
2
37
5
36
1
48
9
42
2
51
11
43
2
55
13
43
2
Herbaceous cover_____________________________________________
64
93
5
3
65
94
27
23
78
93
33
28
78
96
38
25
72
92
25
16
43
43
9
2
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______________________________________ Grasses and grasslike cover_______________________ _____ _ ______
72
65
55
52
64
73
67
39
76
87
89
88
82
83
87
41
20
9
23
31
36
23
5
7
11
2
3
21
28
25
15
2
_-____________--_____-_-__---__
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Forb ~over_________________________________________________
2
5
1
14
1
5
2
11
5
1
0
3
1
0
0
2
____________________________________________________
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
5
1
1
0
8
4
0
0
2
5
1
0
Vine
0
0
0
0
2
3
6
2
1
0
0
0
cover_________________________________________________
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Semiwoody cover____________________________________________
1
2
2
0
9
3
1
1
3
2
1
0
2
1
2
0
3
2
3
0
*These estimates were not made
21
Table 18.-Bainbddge, Georgia: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
-______ ______ ______ ____ _______________-__________ No coyer ___-_-__-_-_--_________ _________________
8
2
5
2
1
1
__*
0
13
2
4
2
5
1
__
0
22
10
11
15
7
4
_1
82
83
44
26
5
5
__
7
________________________-__-_-__-______-____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
___
3
2
9
15
10
12
17
56
__ ________________________________--_-No control
Woody control
Herb control
Totalcontrol
__
__
__
__
21
7
36
0
36
9
36
0
87
81
67
14
96
97
71
3
90
96
61
2
27
41
38
95
41
53
48
94
__
__
__
__
69
84
75
91
Woody cover _-_---_-_________-_ ________________
48
IO
34
0
-_ ___-__ __________ ______-__-_--_-___-_
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Pine cover ___-_______-_- ____________________________
20
24
30
74
59
4
42
0
65
5
45
0
__
__
__
__
69
9
52
1
He&awous cover _________________________-_________
83
98
39
2
68
89
39
2
64
96
37
3
__
__
51
93
43
6
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___________-________-___---~
17
21
29
19
25
29
5
8
11
1
0
0
Grasses and grasslike cover _--_____________________________
37
36
33
__
18
33
30
31
__
16
14
15
5
__
4
0
1
1
__
1
______________________-____--__--____-_
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
33
31
9
3
43
45
3
1
32
47
9
2
_____________________________________-______--_
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
30
27
53
9
26
26
46
2
28
27
35
1
___ __________________________________-______
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
24
20
10
2
‘These estimates were not made.
22
35
40
21
0
20
39
13
0
Forb cover _-__--- ________________________________
13
21
0
1
3
2
1
1
4
11
1
1
__
__
__
__
4
12
2
2
Vine cover _--___-___ ____ _ ________________________________
22
23
22
1
21
24
17
2
21
29
22
2
__
__
__
__
28
43
37
4
Semiwoody cover ______--________________________________
27
46
4
0
17
50
9
1
15
56
8
0
__
__
__
__
7
50
4
1
Table lg.--Liberty, Mississippi: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__________________ ____ _______ ____-___-__________ No coyer ___________
-*
0
0
__
2
__
5
1
4
__
43
57
__
2
__
90
65
12
_____ ____ ___ _______ ___ ________ _--_ _____ ___-____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
___
2
2
5
9
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Totar control
__
__
__
__
44
11
32
1
3
4
23
35
Herbaceous
__
__
__
__
56
83
22
3
11
25
50
88
17
32
57
93
17
35
58
94
31
58
69
97
Woody cover ____-_____-__-_____-_________________________
48
1
40
1
____________________________-___-_-___
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Pine cover -________________________________________________
-_
-_
-_
--
_______ ___-__________________________
0
0
0
3
2
7
0
1
0
7
6
3
__
__
-_
70
0
54
0
80
0
69
0
87
0
63
0
92
1
70
0
Herbaceous cover ____________________________________________
50
94
1
1
-_
__
__
23
75
0
0
11
91
0
0
.2
a5
0
0
3
89
0
0
components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
________ __ ______-_________ -____-_ Grasses and grasslike cover _______- ____ ____________________
__
6
21
-_
a
0
0
1
__
10
42
27
26
2
12
__
1
0
__
0
0
0
0
__
1
0
__
0
0
0
0
_______________________________-___--________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
24
39
2
1
7
7
0
0
Fob cover _____________________-_________________________
__
-_
__
__
__________________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
___
__
11
7
10
2
13
8
1
1
_ ______ ___ _______ __ __________ _____--________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
17
27
10
0
9
36
0
0
2
8
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
Vine cover ____________________-___________________________
__
__
__
__
6
15
0
0
IO
3
0
0
2
3
0
0
2
2
0
0
Semiwoody cover ______________________________________________
__
__
__
__
4
27
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
81
0
0
1
69
0
0
*These estimates were not made.
23
Table 20.--Atmore, Alabama: percentage of p/ant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________~~~~~~____--__-~~~~~~~~~~~~ No cover ___________ ____ -______________ __________________
IO
5
2
1
2
0
0
0
21
11
3
4
1
0
0
0
56
68
57
25
25
16
5
5
97
97
79
33
23
13
5
4
_______________________-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__*
__
__
__
2
2
4
8
8
9
9
21
16
20
16
42
Pine cover ________________________________________~~~~~~~~~~
28
29
31
39
34
49
39
54
36
35
40
49
77
87
95
96
------- Woody cover ____________________________~_~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
42
51
57
64
74
1
1
0
0
0
40
50
54
66
69
0
0
0
0
0
_________________________l_l___
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
23
1
26
0
32
2
34
0
______________~_____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~----No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
71
75
24
2
75
84
4
2
75
83
1
0
Herbaceous
80
95
2
1
cover ___-___________________
72
96
2
1
65
96
2
0
_____________________
57
93
1
0
47
98
1
0
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______-______ ____ _______-_-__ Grasses and grasslike cover _____ _____________--__--------- --------53
74
70
72
61
54
41
32
57
79
73
79
65
58
45
37
2
1
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
Forb cover _________________________________
_________
_______________________I_~-~~~~~~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
5
8
4
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
13
9
16
1
2
4
2
2
3
9
1
0
4
8
1
1
______________________-_~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3
4
2
0
2
7
1
0
__________________________________-_______
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
6
7
2
0
*These estimates were not made.
24
3
3
0
0
5
7
0
0
3
6
1
1
3
12
0
0
2
7
0
0
Vine cover _______________________________
3
15
1
0
1
13
1
0
10
31
1
0
12
39
0
0
________________
1
2
0
0
__________________
IO
44
0
0
Semiwoody cover ______________________________________________
6
16
0
0
8
18
0
0
4
19
0
0
4
20
0
0
8
35
0
0
Table 21 .--Liverpool, Louisiana: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
5
4
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~
6
2
4
14
3
5
63
60
49
57
95
88
__________ No cover ______________________--___________-______
4
4
__*
0
4
4
__
0
37
39
__
1
66
57
__
1
____________________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__-
2
2
2
2
pine
2
3
8
11
__
__
__
__
17
1
23
0
19
1
43
0
94
85
36
43
78
91
15
2
89
94
3
2
4
8
15
40
__
__
__
__
26
50
60
98
36
60
66
99
Woody cover _________-__________--____--_-____
23
1
50
0
23
0
46
0
__
__
__
60
3
70
1
71
4
82
2
Herbaceous
cover -_-_______----__ ___________
69
89
2
3
73
88
4
3
______________~-________I______________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
cover __________________________________________
3
7
13
33
___________-____-__~__I____-______-__~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0
0
0
0
__
__
__
82
97
5
2
85
98
10
6
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__________----____________________
59
54
85
48
67
89
12
4
0
22
1
1
Grasses and grasslike cover ____- ____I______------- --54
51
62
70
70
71
-_
83
86
1
3
__
4
8
1
2
1
4
________________-____-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
25
29
11
11
15
19
3
1
Forb cover _______________-_--_______________
4
6
2
2
8
12
1
2
__________-_-_-___-_________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
3
2
6
4
3
1
4
1
4
2
2
1
____________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
4
4
3
3
4
2
4
0
4
2
2
1
7
11
1
2
__
__
__
__
6
3
0
1
12
2
2
2
Vine cover ______________________--______________
6
6
1
1
8
6
1
0
__
__
__
15
16
0
0
28
34
3
1
Semiwoody cover ____ ___________________________________
2
1
0
0
4
1
0
0
__
__
__
__
3
7
0
0
2
19
0
1
*These estimates were not made.
25
Table 22.--Jena, Louisiana: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________________________________-______
14
3
3
18
7
3
96
54
67
99
48
77
0
0
47
39
_________________________________--_----No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__*
__
__
__
3
2
7
6
10
9
20
20
__
__
__
-_
5
2
9
1
81
83
2
1
90
88
39
50
29
0
18
0
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
85
97
1
0
____________________-___________-_31
57
63
27
55
65
0
.I2
3
0
11
3
Grasses and
54
63
0
0
_______________________________-___--____--No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
50
53
1
0
44
43
24
41
1
0
0
0
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
_____________________________ _____ ___-_No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
6
4
0
0
These estimates were not made.
26
15
9
1
1
42
38
77
95
50
47
78
94
17
4
10
0
25
4
16
0
36
11
21
0
41
15
23
1
7
3
0
0
92
99
3
2
93
100
5
1
94
IQ0
8
2
85
95
7
2
grasslike cover ________________________--__
59
72
2
2
71
78
6
1
72
81
6
1
64
68
5
0
Forb cover ________________________________________________
37
45
4
3
12
14
0
0
____________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
35
30
73
93
____ H&a~ous cover __ ________________________________________
95
96
7
5
Herbaceous components
No control
27
25
69
86
Woocjy cover ______________________________-_-__----------
5
1
8
0
________________________-_______--_
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Pine cover _____________________________________--_________
20
18
53
61
______________________________________--___
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
No cover ____________ ________ ________________ _____________
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
15
12
0
12
5
3
0
18
16
0
0
7
7
0
0
7
7
1
1
8
5
1
1
Vine cover _________________________________________________
5
4
1
0
5
4
1
0
5
4
0
0
5
6
0
0
6
8
0
1
Semiwoody cover _____________ ______________ __________________
13
15
0
0
13
14
0
0
12
17
0
0
12
21
0
0
9
17
0
0
Table 23.--Tallassee, Alabama: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
2
1
Vegetation components
4
3
5
6
7
a
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__________________________________________________ No cover ___________________________________________________
11
a
11
IO
4
1
2
2
a
3
7
7
5
2
1
1
a3
56
47
47
17
12
9
6
96
a9
a2
55
15
a
5
2
No control
_________-________- -_-_-_-__ pine
__*
2
4
7
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
2
5
9
5
9
cover __________________________________________________
12
17
45
ia
ia
27
33
47
27
36
40
42
55
49
73
63
a5
92
95
97
Woody cover _________________________________________________
_______-_l-___---__--_~-~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total Control
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
-_
__
31
0
41
0
37
0
45
0
______________ ______ __ ______ ___ ______ _ _____
68
62
56
92
2
3
96
2
3
41
0
45
0
91
1
1
25
40
0
0
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
30
63
2
3
35
55
1
3
44
61
1
1
13
37
0
1
__________________________________________________
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
_____________ ______ ___________ ______________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
21
15
1
0
5
7
1
0
6
5
0
0
69
1
55
1
75
1
60
1
47
45
42
35
a7
88
a5
80
28
91
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
3
1
______________________-_____________ Grasses and grasslike cover
14
14
1
0
60
1
55
0
Herbaceous cover ____ ______ ___ _____ ____ ____ ___________________
32
58
1
1
_______________________-________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
57
1
52
0
_____________________________________
38
35
27
17
54
52
26
24
1
1
1
1
1
0
2
1
Forb cover _________________________________________________
11
25
0
0
5
19
1
2
3
13
1
1
3
14
1
0
3
IO
1
1
Vine cover ___________________________________________________
1
1
2
2
3
0
0
0
5
0
0
4
0
0
5
0
0
11
0
0
Semiwoody cover ______________________________________________
4
5
0
0
7
21
0
0
a
33
0
0
5
40
0
0
5
53
0
0
*These estimates were not made.
27
Table 24.--Warren, Arkansas: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
Treatment
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
________________-____________________-_______-_
No coyer _______ _________ ______________-_ _______ __ _______
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
46
2
0
1
1
1
0
7
45
4
1
4
3
1
1
3
98
79
51
25
12
5
5
4
99
85
67
33
17
10
18
7
_________________________________-______________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
-*
__
__
__
2
2
10
10
19
19
29
33
-________--_____-------_-_-____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
___
__
27
1
31
0
54
55
3
1
94
93
2
7
cover __________________________________________________
29
31
68
80
31
36
66
87
35
37
69
81
42
55
81
93
Woody cover ____ _____ _______ _____ ______ ___- _____ __-__ _____
21
17
18
0
______________________--_____-_
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
pine
10
12
56
66
29
0
18
0
23
4
15
0
43
10
24
0
59
20
29
0
54
29
28
0
Herbaeous cover ________________________--________________
62
63
2
0
66
87
3
1
99
98
5
3
99
99
7
3
87
87
5
3
79
82
3
1
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
-______--___----_---- Grasses and grasslike coyer _______________________________-___
18
55
58
62
99
98
87
72
18
59
96
86
65
79
97
67
1
1
2
3
5
4
2
2
1
5
1
2
2
3
0
1
______________________________-___--_-____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
35
36
1
1
37
29
1
2
25
22
0
0
_____________________________-___-_____--____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
1
4
1
0
2
2
0
0
7
5
0
0
_________________________-_-_____________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
0
0
0
0
*These estimates were not made.
28
3
6
0
0
6
7
0
0
Forb cover ___________________-__________________________
1
5
0
0
19
24
0
1
10
27
3
1
11
20
3
1
8
5
2
0
Vine cover ___________ ____ _____ ______ ________________________
1
2
0
0
9
11
0
0
8
14
0
0
20
28
1
0
5
11
0
0
Semiwoody cover _____________________________________________
3
2
0
0
17
24
0
0
16
26
0
0
14
30
1
0
11
18
0
0
Table 25.--Counce, Tennessee: percentage of p/ant cover by components for the tirst 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
7
6
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________________~~~_____________~_~~~~~~~~
No cover ________________________
25
3
2
2
3
1
31
5
2
0
2
0
94
75
63
33
27
10
97
87
78
43
34
10
______________________~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
-*
__
__
__
5
5
8
8
13
14
21
23
_____________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
7
2
13
0
9
2
15
0
______________ ____ ________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
75
69
6
2
85
88
5
5
75
83
1
0
Woody cover ___________________________________-___________
10
3
17
0
17
1
18
0
29
5
24
0
41
9
30
0
42
10
37
0
Herbaceous cover _______ ________-_____ ____________________-_
72
78
10
11
_________________________________________________
8
9
9
8
12
5
7
8
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
1
2
3
3
2
5
7
1
1
8
6
1
0
_______________ ____ _________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
pine cover ____________________-______-_-_- ________________
16
13
32
40
53
20
18
34
44
61
42
49
68
75
79
46
59
81
89
85
81
89
11
9
95
98
24
20
77
80
28
19
60
67
18
9
_ ________-___- _______ __________-_-Grasses and grasslike cover ________________ ____-______
83
54
55
59
67
83
68
28
53
84
64
59
69
89
64
20
6
4
0
8
10
23
22
7
2
5
0
9
8
19
16
7
__________________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_____________-----------0
2
0
3
4
2
4
7
1
1
0
0
3
4
0
0
3
5
0
0
Forb cover _____-___________-__
15
28
17
26
1
4
2
4
_______________________
23
9
23
8
4
2
4
3
Vine cover ______________________________--____________
3
7
2
0
7
8
3
1
10
14
6
2
13
21
11
3
14
22
11
1
Semiwoody cover ___ ____ ________________ ______________________
3
5
0
0
4
5
0
0
6
9
0
0
12
18
0
0
24
40
0
0
*These estimates were not made.
29
Table 26.--Arcadia, Louisiana: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________________________________________ No cover _________________________________________________
3
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
1
1
8
1
1
2
55
50
50
32
13
3
0
4
84
52
72
12
3
1
89
2
___________________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
pine
5
7
14
24
2
2
5
9
_________________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
15
11
20
3
21
2
31
1
86
81
24
6
90
95
18
44
44
3
53
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___________________________________
62
83
75
66
79
85
21
15
3
5
23
2
89
89
3
5
24
16
3
1
13
20
3
13
7
IO
1
1
_______________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
3
2
3
9
3
2
3
IO
2
2
2
1
_____________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
30
1
1
1
0
8
2
1
0
5
2
0
1
31
55
52
91
53
73
52
90
48
10
61
0
52
12
66
0
63
1
60
0
66
4
62
0
78
81
15
50
55
76
10
38
54
89
4
35
44
82
3
24
grasses and grasslike cover _______________________________________
76
79
1
0
_____________________________________-___________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
18
24
33
85
Herbaceous cover ____________________________________________
86
95
3
3
Herbaceous components
8
9
21
56
Woody cover _______________ _ _______________________________
21
4
45
1
__________________________-__-_-__________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
cover _________________________________________________
64
55
6
20
32
19
6
13
25
25
2
13
18
20
1
4
Forb cover _________________________________________________
16
18
1
2
12
25
7
34
12
27
5
27
12
26
3
24
4
15
2
21
Vine cover ___________________________________________________
3
3
1
1
5
3
3
1
5
2
1
0
5
5
1
0
7
6
1
0
Semiwoody cover ____________________________________________
7
7
1
2
11
13
1
0
12
30
0
0
19
46
0
0
14
43
0
0
Table 27.--Camp Hill, Alabama: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
4
3
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
_______________-____~~~~~~~~~~_-__-~~~~~~--- No cover ________________________________ ________________
2
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
17
3
3
1
1
0
1
0
46
25
21
11
6
3
3
2
97
97
70
35
7
2
2
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
pine
8
10
9
65
____________________~~~~~~______~~____I~~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__*
__
__
__
2
2
2
7
2
3
6
30
_________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__
__
__
__
47
1
70
0
88
83
2
2
89
96
1
2
17
25
17
92
23
37
21
97
32
52
23
97
40
66
35
99
Woody cover ________________________ ____________________---
43
0
78
0
___________________________________-_____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
mver ______________________________________________-
47
1
84
0
50
1
89
0
58
3
91
0
71
2
91
0
85
11
94
2
He~a~ous cover ________ ________ _____________ _______________
81
97
1
0
89
98
1
0
85
97
2
0
85
99
5
2
73
93
4
1
71
98
7
2
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
________________--__________________
Grasses and grasslike cover _________ _____________________------64
83
64
81
67
62
41
35
26
42
57
85
83
84
56
59
1
1
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
______________________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
50
61
1
1
45
73
1
2
25
51
0
0
__________________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
12
2
2
2
16
6
5
1
10
3
1
0
____________________________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
2
1
0
2
1
1
0
1
1
0
0
Forb cover ________________________________________-_-_---
24
48
0
0
14
36
0
0
16
33
1
2
11
17
1
1
6
21
1
1
Vine cover _________________________________________________
10
7
1
0
18
11
2
0
25
23
5
0
32
38
3
0
43
51
7
1
Semiwoodycover ___________________________________________
3
1
0
0
5
1
0
0
4
2
0
0
3
4
0
0
4
15
1
1
*These estimates were not made.
31
Table 28.- Monticello, Georgia: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Vegetation components
._______________-_____--_________________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
55
75
81
87
7
31
70
85
8
15
47
55
_________________________-____________________
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__*
__
__
__
7
8
8
9
10
20
21
28
No cover __________________________________________-----__
4
6
53
57
2
6
52
51
1
4
30
37
0
3
23
25
0
1
18
18
Pine cover _________________________-____-_______-________
13
25
37
39
18
28
41
43
40
45
68
61
51
60
78
76
54
68
84
83
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________________________--__
__
19
21
__
2
1
__
9
9
__
1
0
Woody cover __________________________________-___-_____
30
28
37
25
42
1
1
1
1
1
13
10
8
12
12
0
0
0
3
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______________________________________ Herbaceous cover ___________________________________________
45
70
60
72
57
60
61
60
25
62
64
82
69
67
70
55
19
14
26
3
2
1
4
11
13
6
18
10
1
5
6
10
Herbaceous components
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________________________________ Grasses and grasslike cover ___________________________________
11
35
33
38
34
40
37
44
4
8
22
5
46
11
3
1
10
51
51
54
43
1
5
1
4
1
2
2
4
7
6
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______________________________________________
23
17
8
9
10
37
13
9
4
3
4
0
3
3
3
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________-_________________________________
8
11
18
8
2
2
5
3
9
5
1
4
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________________________-__________
5
5
2
0
1
3
2
1
*These estimates were not made.
32
58
Semiwoody
1
0
0
0
Forb cover _________________________-______________-______
4
5
5
7
4
4
0
0
0
1
1
0
Vine cover _________________________-_______________________
22
9
9
11
12
8
7
8
0
0
0
0
4
2
1
1
5
3
1
1
7
8
1
1
cover _____________________________________________
1
8
5
3
2
0
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Table 29.--Appomattox, Virginia: percentage of plant cover by components for the first 8 years
Year
Treatment
1
Vegetation components
2
3
5
4
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_ ____ __ _____ ___ ____ ______--_---_-__________
ia
12
-*
22
62
__
27
40
__
33
93
__
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
______________________________-_-_-______
__
__
2
__
__
2
__
2
__
__
2
__
__
__
__
6
7
a
No coyer _________________________________________-____
9
3
0
16
2
2
27
4
2
39
6
1
Pine
___
__
2
2
2
2
WVef ___________________________________-___--____
11
20
12
29
a
19
23
47
20
74
a
50
15
47
10
67
Woody cover __________________________________________-____
________---______-__________I-____
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___
__
__
53
4
53
4
__
__
___-
1:
______-______________--__--__-_
56
40
__
53
35
37
9
38
3
__
Herbaceous components
______________________-____---___
No control
21
16
Woody control
6
9
Herb control
13
3
Total control
16
2
55
4
55
0
75
6
75
2
86
7
88
2
a5
11
a7
3
Herbawous cover _________ _ ____________ -___-_-_--_
__
__
__
29
67
6
32
45
96
19
a3
39
99
14
69
Grasses and grasslike cover __________________________-__
24
29
21
-_
49
a3
74
11
8
5
26
74
57
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________________-__-_-______
36
11
__
39
13
__
16
2
16
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________________-______-___
9
12
__
12
9
__
13
2
__
a
1
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___________________________-__---_--_
4
9
4
5
a
2
__
9
1
__
24
a2
11
67
11
53
7
51
F& cover ____________________________________________-
__
__
5
19
1
7
7
11
4
6
10
15
4
10
5
12
4
11
Vine *ver _________________________________________~-_
-_
-_
__
1
3
0
0
9
11
4
6
4
28
0
0
4
21
1
2
Semiwoody cover ---___----_______ ___________________________
__
-_
3
2
0
0
9
6
3
6
4
7
1
2
4
7
1
7
*These estimates were not made.
33
Table 30.-Pembroke, Georgia: woody competition growth response values forplants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
Nonarborescent
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights’
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
3
_________-______________________--______-____-_
5,826
950
4,699
862
9,522
1,003
4,928
827
10,050
1,179
5,368
158
4
5
Number _--_________________________________________________
9,997
2,006
5,773
510
4,893
1,109
3,062
493
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
12,954
4,805
6,072
1,214
-_--- _______ -___- _____ ___-__-______-______ Ft/acre ---_-__-_____-___ _______ _- __________ _ ____________
7,427
13,341
16,192
14,960
9,750
29,181
1,056
1,426
1,514
2,605
1,883
9,574
6,002
8,131
10,525
11,634
9,011
16,843
933
1,232
158
616
651
2,006
Arborescent rootstocks
_-___--___--___---__--_______--_ Number --_---- _____ -__-_--__
per acre*
No control
792
950
898
774
Woody control
70
88
35
53
Herb control
563
739
704
722
Total control
194
53
0
106
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
8
___________ _ _________
774
898
70
158
669
810
158
158
-~-___l~____-_-____-_- Ft/acre _---_-_--____---_-__-_-_-___-__________
1,531
2,288
2,658
2,851
3,326
4,805
106
176
53
123
176
616
1,091
2,270
2,710
3,854
3,678
4,646
194
88
0
123
264
317
_ ________________________-_______________-_
-_*
_I
_I
__I
_-_
-_
_-____
___
___
Fp/ame ________---__-___-_____________-____-____________
-_
0.4
1.1
_0.0
0.1
_1.4
2.1
_0.0
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.+ _-__-___--_-_______-_______--__ Number ____________________________-__-___-_____________
-_
___
___
No control
326
-__
_--_
___
Woody control
19
___
____
443
Herb control
-_
____
___
Total control
2
*Values based on three 9 by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
These measurements were not made.
34
340
30
338
4
Table 31 .--Bainbridge, Georgia: woody competition growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
8
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__________________________________________ _______ ______ Number _________ ___ ___________ _ _____________ _____ _______ _________
2,084
3,294
4,369
4,885
3,899
2,398
1,412
2,241
2,532
3,832
784
650
2,173
2,241
2,375
1,972
1,479
874
448
22
0
0
0
134
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______________________________________________________ Ft/acre ___________________________________________________________
3,720
7,372
10,352
18,150
17,926
12,481
2,465
4,481
4,504
10,755
2,465
2,644
3,608
6,296
7,977
8,649
7,148
3,316
739
22
0
0
0
336
Arborescent rootstocks
________________________________________________________
Number
per acre*
No control
2,868
2,823
4,235
Woody control
1,322
739
851
Herb control
4,100
4,392
4,661
Total control
2,196
90
0
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___________________________________________________________
3,988
3,675
3,316
515
493
851
4,885
4,235
3,720
0
0
134
____________________~~_____~~~~~~~~~__~~~~~~~~~~~ _______ Ft/acre ___________________________________________________________
5,579
8,873
16,805
24,222
29,353
41,341
1,681
1,232
1,255
3,361
1,905
1,143
7,663
14,811
21,869
30,698
35,448
42,685
2,689
90
0
0
0
202
____________________________________________ _____ _______ #/acre _______ ____ __________ _ ____________ ____ __________ _______ ____
___*
___
___
-_5.8
12.0
___
___
-_--_
0.0
0.1
___
___
___
--_
10.7
15.9
___
___
___
_-_
0.0
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.+ ________________________________________________________
___
___
--_
No control
___
___
--_
Woody control
___
___
_-_
Herb control
__--_
Total control
Number
___________________________________________________________
___
1,830
1,830
___
8
134
___
2,714
2,618
*__
0
3
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 ft tall.
These measurements were not made.
35
Table 32.~Liberty, Mississippi: woody competition growth response values for plants >0.5 ff tall for years 7 through 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
Nonarborescent
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
3
_ ________________________________________----_-*
___
___
___
4,661
3,316
1,098
67
4
Number ________________________-_
3,249
45
941
67
__-_______~_-_~~~--~_________________I__
___
16,536
17,007
___
11,383
134
_4,952
6,655
_112
134
5
___
___
___
___
8
______ _ ___________________
6,789
0
874
0
2,129
0
538
0
Ft/acre ____________________________-_______-______________
-_
43,940
31,303
I_
0
0
_I
9,030
10,442
___
0
0
Arborescent rootstocks
______________________-____-__--__--- Number ___________---__per acre*
No control
_3,182
3,316
-Woody control
___
672
202
___
Herb control
___
2,935
3,047
___
Total control
I_
381
224
___
_______ _________ _________________ _
5,759
3,451
0
0
3,720
2,711
0
0
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___---~-~-______-_________l_l
___
11,674
18,912
___
1,748
471
___
11,696
19,091
___
605
471
Fffacre ____-_-_-____-___- ____ ________ _____ _ ___________
.-39,257
49,251
___
0
0
___
36,142
40,691
-_
0
0
Arborescent
basal area*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________-______________-___
-_
___
___
___
___
___
___
Fp/acre _______________________________________________-_
___
9.7
20.1
_0.0
0.0
___
9.6
21.6
_0.0
0.0
_-
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.* ___________________________-__-------___
-_
-_
No control
___
___
Woody control
___
I_
-_
Herb control
___
_-___
Total control
Number
__________________________________________________
___
2,406
3,732
_I
0
0
___
1,813
2,634
--_
0
0
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
SThese measurements were not made.
Table 33.-Atmoe, Alabama: woody competition growth response values for plants ~0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_________________
8,492
829
9,142
784
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
9,747
627
7,730
0
3
4
5
8
________________ Number _________________________-_________-_____--______
11,248
6,162
8,537
4,997
807
291
269
0
8,179
3,383
4,459
3,540
0
0
0
0
_________________-___ ________________-- Ft/acre ____________-_ ____ _-__- -__- -_--___- _____ __
10,867
15,192
24,043
15,237
21,623
22,026
829
717
1,188
493
426
0
12,548
13,713
21,219
13,511
17,836
17,365
784
0
0
0
0
0
Arborescent rootstocks
__---___---___----I
per acre*
No control
1,300
Woody control
471
Herb control
964
Total control
336
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
1,120
202
762
67
____________ Number __-______-___________-_-___-1,210
1,053
986
224
112
45
695
695
739
22
0
0
_____________---_- _____-_______-_ Ft/acre _______-__-_
2,532
3,047
5,288
4,885
515
224
515
90
1,703
2,398
4,818
6,252
359
67
45
0
-___---___--_--_$
___-___
-_
_-
_-__
__--_829
0
515
0
_ _ _ _ -_-_ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _
5,826
7,910
336
0
7,954
7,574
0
0
Ft21acre -__-----__
--__
-__
-__
3.2
0.0
7.3
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.+ __________-____-___---- _____________ Number _-__--___--_--__ _--_ _-_
_I
-__
-No control
664
_-_
_I
___
___
Woody control
0
_-_
-_
___
-__
Herb control
587
--_
_I
I_
-__
Total control
0
-
8.1
0.0
15.0
0.0
- 694
0
516
0
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
values based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 fi tall.
These measurements were not made.
37
Table X-Liverpool, Louisiana: woody competition growth response values forplants ~0.5 ff tall for years 1 through 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
__________________________
2,084
1,479
2,420
2,263
2,823
941
1,815
336
3
4
5
8
-_____--_____- Number --_--_------_-_______-__________
2,801
314
1,568
112
_-__-_-__-_______-___________________-___ Fvacm
2,913
5,378
6,565
1,882
1,793
403
3,742
4,840
6,027
3,092
627
157
3,271
515
1,479
112
3,495
650
1,613
157
3,899
1,434
2,577
919
9,030
807
7,036
157
10,867
1,008
7,932
224
~16,357
3,518
12,369
1,255
Arborescent rootstocks
_-------___-_____-__----~------ N u m b e r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______-___-____________
per acre*
No control
1,658
1,905
1,815
1,793
1,882
1,703
Woody control
538
179
45
67
22
90
Herb control
1,860
1,949
1,636
1,255
1,344
1,636
Total control
739
67
22
22
22
179
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
---_--___--1______-___l____l__ Fvacm ______ -_-_____- _____ ____-__3,204
5,310
6,677
8.044
9,613
13,848
874
224
90
90
22
224
4,280
7,260
10,688
10,867
12,996
19,920
1,412
134
22
22
22
179
Fe/acre -____---__ -____-___________-_______I__-__
-_*
___
___
___
___
___
___
_--
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.+ -- _____ -___-____________________________
___
___
No control
-_
___
Woody control
__-Herb control
___
___
Total control
_-_-
_--_
--_
___
3.4
0.0
10.4
0.0
____ --__ Number _---____-_-_ --_______________________________
___
___
1,114
1,213
I_
___
0
0
___
___
1,180
1,114
__0
0
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
These measurements were not made.
38
6.6
0.0
14.6
0.0
Table 35.--Jena, Louisiana: woody competition growth response Values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 thmugh 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
a
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre’
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____-____-______ ___________--_-_--___-_ Number __-______________________-______-_________________
1,076
1,277
i ,882
2,173
1,143
1,905
314
583
246
672
650
1,434
224
246
202
134
224
291
45
0
0
0
0
67
Nonarborescent
sum of heights’
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_____________--_-__--___-_-_____________________ Ft/acm _____--___________-____-_____-_______-__________
1,949
2,644
4,414
5,490
3,764
11,226
493
919
336
1,501
1,546
7,394
314
739
829
807
1,232
2,173
45
0
0
0
0
112
Arborescent rootstocks
_____--__-_-_-P ___-__-_____ Number _________________-_________________________________
per acre*
No control
986
964
1,344
I ,389
1,232
1,188
Woody control
359
403
67
471
538
448
Herb control
874
1,076
I ,008
a51
650
605
Total control
179
314
0
0
22
157
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
__------- __----_---_ ____ ---__ Ft/acre _-_______-_-_______--_-_____--_________-______
1,232
1,905
3,294
3,787
4,526
8,447
448
605
112
I ,098
1,322
2,711
1,053
2,599
4,011
4,818
4,526
8,918
179
336
0
0
22
246
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________-____--____-_____ Ff/acm ______-_______-____________--____________________
-_*
-_
___
--_
2.1
0.6
____
--_
..0.0
0.9
____
--_
___
1.9
5.4
___
__-_-0.0
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.t
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___-___________ ___-_ _____________ - _____ Number _________ _ -_____ _________---____-_____-___________
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_--
___
___
___
___
___
--_
--_
--_
277
25
302
0
455
179
329
0
‘Values based on three 9- by la-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
+Values based on 1 00-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods 25 ft tall.
SThese measurements were not made.
39
Table 36.-Tallassee, Alabama: woody competition growth response values forplants ~0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5.and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre’
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
538
45
246
0
627
22
202
0
___________________-~~~-~~~~-~~
1,053
45
471
0
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
112
2,106
0
-
-
538
22
112
0
2,263
0
538
0
67
2,017
0
13,243
45
11,943
0
___________________-____-~~~~~~~~~~____I~
_-_*
___
___
___
___
___
_--
112
1,860
0
941
90
134
291
__________________
2,734
0
627
0
5,467
224
583
336
_________________________
3,787
67
1,793
0
3,428
112
1,793
134
Ft/scm _______________-__-_____-______
______-____-___---____I
a,91 a
112
6,610
0
2,173
45
538
0
-__--- Number _________-____--___-_3,742
3,809
45
1,927
0
493
0
202
0
- Fvacm __________-____-_---___
-
6
Number ____________________-____________________
695
0
179
0
1,703
45
560
0
5
4
_____________________-__-_--__--
Arborescent rootstocks
____________________~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
per acre*
No control
3,204
3,339
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
3
16,402
112
14,632
0
20,301
134
16,648
0
_ Ff/acm
-
_____________________________________________
_a.8
19.1
I_
-
___
___
___
23,483
224
18,508
0
0.0
17.1
0.0
34,664
381
23,886
134
0.0
22.7
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre with d.b.h.+ ________--___-___-__~______________II Number ___________________--_________________________
___
_-_
-_
-_
No control
1,745
2,212
___
_-_
I_
Woody control
0
19
____
_-_
Herb control
1,704
1,690
Total control
--_
__-
-_
_I
0
*Values based on three 9 by Ia-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
These measurements were not made.
40
0
Table 37.--Warren, Arkansas: woody competifion growth response values for plants >0.5 ff fall for years 1 fhmugh 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
3
4
a
5
____________________________________--___
Number ________________________-_____________-_____________
359
964
2,666
2,286
2,465
1,636
112
1,053
1,905
22
493
2,151
90
134
157
67
90
157
0
0
0
0
0
157
___________-__--____________-______403
1,165
112
1,210
90
134
0
0
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre*
No control
Woody control
I
Herb control
Total control
471
471
,008
269
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
784
650
,815
269
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
____ _--__ Ffface __ ________________- __ ____ -- __-_ _ _____-_ _ _______ ___
8,492
9,030
7,708
I I ,988
7,305
45
1,076
9,837
202
90
112
336
0
0
0
179
.
762
202
1,120
90
762
179
a74
0
__---_------____-__
I
1,703
359
5,400
90
________-____--____-_______-_-__-
2,263
291
6,229
0
_“,,,..v”,
471
22
784
0
627
179
739
0
--_--
FvacE - _______
1,658
22
7,058
0
I
605
179
,098
45
2,017
359
7,148
0
4,123
941
16,111
67
_____ _ ____ - Ff/acm ______ - _____ -_---____-_____-_______
___:
--
_-
___
___
____
-a_
_-_
__--
___
___
_-
0.2
0.0
1.2
0.0
2.2
0.8
3.8
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
Number _ _______ __ _______ --_~--_-__---__-____
per acre with d.b.h? __________-____________--____-___-_~--___
___
-__
_-_-159
No control
450
____
_--__
0
Woody control
206
___
__--__
192
Herb control
209
___
___
___
-__
0
a
Total control
*Values based on three 9- by I&ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on IOO-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
These measurements were not made.
41
Table 38.-Counce, Tennessee: woody p/ant groivth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at year 8
Year
Treatment
1
2
4
3
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_____ ______ ____________________________-__________
____ Number ___-______-_________-___
560
1,479
1,367
1,479
314
695
919
1,098
179
448
381
359
22
22
0
0
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
____________________________________________________
583
1,770
2,241
314
829
1,613
179
493
471
22
22
0
Arborescent rootstocks
______.________________-______________________-_
per acre’
No control
1,367
1,277
Woody control
157
179
Herb control
1,770
1,636
Total control
179
22
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Arborescent
basal area*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
5
8
_______________________ _____
1,994
1,770
538
919
336
246
45
22
Fffacm ____________________-______________________________
3,204
4,302
5,355
1,972
807
2,846
695
717
1,479
0
45
45
____ ___ Number ____________--__________-___
1,524
1,434
202
157
1,524
1,367
0
0
_______ _ ______________ ____
1,568
1,412
0
22
1,232
1,255
0
0
______________-_-___________l_______l___~ Ft/acm _____-____- ______I_______-_____~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~
1,815
2,465
4,056
5,019
6,252
8,828
202
269
426
314
0
22
3,137
4,728
6,453
6,924
6,722
9,994
179
22
0
0
0
0
____ ______ ___ ________________ _______-_-__-__-____*
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
___
_-
Fp/acE ____ __________ _____-_____-____ _____ _________________
___
0.7
1.6
___
0.0
0.0
-_
2.0
2.9
-0.0
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
_______________-________________________-__-_-_____
Number _--____________________________________________________
per acre with d.b.h.’
___
___
___
___
No control
439
851
___
___
___
-__
Woody control
0
0
___
___
___
___
Herb control
527
590
___
___
___
___
Total control
0
0
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 fl tall.
SThese measurements were not made.
42
Table 39.--Arcadia, Louisiana: woody p/ant growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tat/ for years 1 through 5 and at year 8
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
8
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre’
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______________________________________________-______
Number _____-__________________________ ____--___----_____---____
10,165
11,050
7,011
12,434
__*
4,606
5,536
908
1,157
1,021
__
749
4,288
3,494
2,541
1,770
__
840
930
68
0
0
__
930
Nonarborescent
sum of heights’
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
________________________________________________________
14,385
21,737
17,585
7,556
1,407
2,382
6,467
7,374
7,079
1,407
91
0
Ff/acre
____________________________________________________________
29,656
_23,416
2,587
__
1,225
6,648
__
26,525
0
__
1,157
Arborescent rootstocks
_________________________________________________________ Number __________________________-______________________________
per acre*
No control
976
1,724
2,065
2,337
__
1,452
Woody control
590
408
476
363
__
318
Herb control
2,065
3.086
3,154
2,609
__
1,997
Total control
363
340
204
45
__
23
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
_______________________________________________-_______
&?/acre _______________________________________________________-_
2,496
5,083
7,488
8,690
__
13,478
998
567
1,044
885
__
2,677
5,196
10,937
18,265
19,377
__
5,105
522
431
408
227
__
1,157
______________________________________~~~_____~~~___~~~
Fe/acre ________________________________________ ____ ___ _____ ___ ____
___
___
___-3.1
5.0
___
_-___
_-0.1
0.1
___
_-___
___
12.3
13.2
___
___
_-___
0.0
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
________________________________________________________
per acre with d.b.h.’
___
___
_-No control
___
___
_-Woody control
_____
_-Herb control
___
___
_-Total control
Number
__________________________________________________________
___
1,027
1,366
___
131
121
___
1,335
1,496
___
0
0
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
?hese measurements were not made.
43
Table 40.-Camp Hill, Alabama: woody competition growth response values forplants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 thtuugh 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
2
3
4
5
8
Nonarborescent
Number _l_____________________________________________
rootstocks per acre* ____________________________I___________~~~~~~~~
No control
16,514
11,540
12,324
9,254
9,299
5,064
Woody control
2,017
1,143
45
560
1,165
2,308
Herb control
8,761
4,862
7,865
6,498
5,826
2,935
Total control
1,412
359
0
0
22
90
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Fffacre ____________________________________________-_______
________________________~_________I_____~~~
22,878
19,292
21,152
20,749
19,741
15,349
2,263
1,277
67
896
1,524
5,826
13,915
10,778
16,200
18,284
18,351
10,823
1,412
359
0
0
45
179
Arborescent rootstocks
per acre*
3,428
No control
1,165
Woody control
4,168
Herb control
336
Total control
,
3,630
717
3,227
112
.“.,,“W,
4,459
45
4,011
0
4,100
112
4,414
0
5,086
179
4,571
0
3,988
269
4,526
426
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
FvacE ________________________ _______________________
_______________________~__~~~~~__l____l-~~
6,834
1,389
9,792
336
10,128
941
13,668
112
13,153
67
20,883
0
___________________________-________________
___*
___
___
___
___
--____
___
___
___
--_
___
___
_-
_-
___
___
-_
_I_
21,533
291
34,888
0
5.3
0.0
14.7
0.0
7.1
0.0
14.4
0.0
Number _________________________-______________________-
___
___
___
___
1,827
0
2,769
0
*Values based on three 9- by 18-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
tValues based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
SThese measurements were not made.
44
31,392
695
50,124
471
@/acre ___________________________________________________
_I
Arborescent rootstocks
__________________________________--____-_-_-per acre with d.b.h?
___
___
___
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
16,581
179
30,294
0
2,173
0
2,480
0
Table 41 .--Monticello, Georgia: woody plant growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at year 8
Year
Treatment
1
Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
4
5
8
_____________________________________________________ Number __________________________________________________________
3,025
4,930
5,736
3,204
2,532
2,106
2,263
224
157
179
134
67
717
1,210
1,591
1,143
964
1,165
717
224
22
0
67
157
__________________________-__________________________
4,840
3,585
964
1,165
8,380
291
2,554
403
Arborescent rootstocks
________________________________________________-___
per acre*
No control
1,681
2,420
Woody control
1,412
426
Herb control1,501
1,031
Total control
807
134
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
3
Ft/acm _________________________________________________________
8,985
291
3,787
90
9,120
291
4,459
0
7,125
224
3,720
112
9,389
202
5,535
426
Number ___________________________________________________________
1,837
1,367
1,076
1,636
224
90
112
90
627
605
426
807
90
0
0
45
______________________________________________________ F&ye _________________________________________________________
3,003
5,736
4,885
5,579
4,078
9,254
2,711
717
381
179
246
246
1,815
1,882
1,860
2,577
1,703
3,966
1,255
202
134
0
0
90
__________________________________________________
-_*
___
___
-__
___
-__
___
-__
______ Ff/aom ______ ________ ____ ________ ____ _________ _____ _________ ___
___
--_
3.3
9.3
___
___
0.3
0.0
___
___
2.2
3.2
___
___
0.5
0.0
Arborescent rootstocks
______________________________________________________
per acre with d.b.h.t
-__
___
___
No control
-__
___
___
Woody control
-__
___
___
Herb control
___
___
-__
Total control
Number
___________________________________________________________
___
870
1,388
___
107
5
___
392
417
___
52
0
*Values based on three 9- by la-ft subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on loo-percent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods > 5 tI tall.
These measurements were not made.
45
Table 42.--Appomattox, Virginia: woody competition growth response values for plants >0.5 ft tall for years 1 through 5 and at
year 8
Year
Treatment
1
2
_____________________________-__Nonarborescent
rootstocks per acre*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Nonarborescent
sum of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
6,341
5,848
7,372
7,730
3
__*
__
__
__
Arborescent
basal area+
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
___________--___-__-_
6,341
7,820
3,787
1,770
7,282
9,657
4,123
3,652
______________________________________
7,999
0
5,288
0
____________ Fvacm ________--_-___
__
17,500
__
0
__
13,399
__
0
Arborescent rootstocks
____________________________________________-________
per acre*
3,495
3,294
No control
1,232
2.644
Woody control
3,652
3,249
Herb control
2,689
1,681
Total control
Arborescent sum
of heights*
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
2,577
22
2,218
0
__
__
__
___________
__
__
__
__
Fvacm
___________________________________
14,206
12,257
45
3,294
11,316
9,971
45
1,188
2,465
90
2,442
45
14,228
112
15,013
67
_--
-
___
___
__-
___
___
-
3,137
403
2,846
359
23,751
1,479
26,844
762
___
_--
___
-
___
___
___
_ _
_-
-_
___
___
4.7
0.1
15.0
0.2
a.5
0.3
21.4
0.2
_~~~~_~___________-__~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
1,163
I ,808
36
1,476
19
‘Values based on three 9- by la-p1 subplots within each pine measurement plot.
‘Values based on logpercent sample of pine measurement plot for arborescent hardwoods >5 ft tall.
These measurements were not made.
46
3,787
1,120
2,622
359
____ _ ______ - #/acre ______--_-- _____________________________
___
___
___
-__
5,669
45
3,563
45
_-___---_-_______-__----
10,262
45
9,792
0
-
___
___
___
a
Number ___________________________-_____________________
__
Arborescent rootstocks
_______________________________________ __________ _ _____ _ Number _
per acre with d.b.h.+
-_
___
___
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
5
_____________ Number _-__-_--_______ _________________________________
4,907
605
4,885
2,039
___________________________________-__
9,299
10,486
986
9,052
I 0,038
9,904
11,674
3,832
4
134
z ,729
102
Table 43.--Mean height of the tallest 100, 200, 300, and 400 pines per acre by treatment
for each location at year 8 (continued)
Mean height of tallest trees per acre
Location
Treatment
1 OOlacre
2OOlacre
300lacre
400Iacre
___________________________________Feet___________-____________-___________.
27.3
26.2
25.4
24.7
33.5
32.3
31.3
30.4
34.5
33.6
32.8
31.9
37.6
36.3
35.6
34.7
Pembroke, GA
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
Bainbridge, GA
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
32.9
31.3
35.9
40.6
31.5
30.3
35.1
39.3
30.8
29.6
34.3
38.6
30.0
28.8
33.4
37.8
Liberty, M S
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
30.6
34.2
40.0
41.2
29.3
32.6
38.6
40.1
28.2
31.4
37.6
39.3
27.0
30.3
36.5
38.3
Atmore, AL
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
25.0
28.7
29.9
34.7
23.7
27.2
28.5
33.6
23.0
26.4
27.3
32.6
22.6
25.5
26.1
32.0
Liverpool, LA
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
25.7
28.0
33.2
34.7
24.5
26.8
32.1
34.1
23.7
25.8
31.2
33.6
22.8
25.0
30.2
33.0
Jena, L A
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
29.3
28.9
35.1
36.4
28.4
27.9
34.4
35.7
27.7
27.1
33.8
35.2
26.9
26.1
33.2
34.7
Tallassee, AL
No control
Woody control
Herb control
Total control
23.6
25.7
28.7
33.3
22.7
24.7
27.2
32.5
21.9
23.9
25.9
31 .a
21.1
23.3
24.7
31.2
47
LITEXATURE CITED
Burkhart, Harold E.; Farrar, Kenneth D.; Amateis,
Ralph L.; Daniels, Richard F. 1987. Simulation of
individual tree growth and stand development in
loblolly pine plantations on cutover, site-prepared
areas. Publ. FWS-1-87 Blacksburg, VA: School of
Forestry and Wildlife Resources, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. 47 p.
Cain, M.D. 1991. The influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early growth of naturally regenerated loblolly and shortleaf pine. Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry. X(4): 179-185.
Jackson, M.L. 1958. Soil chemical analysis. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. 498 p.
Mehlich, A. 1953. Determination of P. Ca, Mg, K, Na,
and NH, by North Carolina soil testing laboratories. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
Mimeo. 5 p.
Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce; Zedaker, Shepard M.
[and others]. 1987. Region-wide study of loblolly pine
seedling growth relative to four competition levels
after two growing seasons. In: Proceedings of the
4th biennial southern silvicultural research conference; 1986 November 4-6; Atlanta, GA, Gen. Tech.
Rep. SE-42. Asheville, NC: U.S. Department ofAgriculture, Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Station: 581-591.
Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce R.; Zedaker, Shepard
M. [and others]. 1991. A regional study on the influence of woody and herbaceous competition on early
loblolly pine growth. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry. 15(4): 169-179.
Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce R.; Zedaker, Shepard
M. [and others]. 1995. Early plant succession in
loblolly pine plantations as affected by vegetation management. Southern Journal ofApplied Forestry. 19(3):
109-126.
Zutter, B.R.; Miller, J.H.; Zedaker, S.M. [and others].
[In press]. Response of loblolly pine plantations to
woody and herbaceous control-eight-year results
of the region-wide study-The COMProject. In: Proceedings of the 8th biennial southern silvicultural
research conference; 1994 31 October-3 November;
Auburn, AL. Gen. Tech. Rep. New Orleans, LA: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Forest Experiment Station.
PESTICIDE PRECAUTIONARY STATEMENT
Pesticides used improperly can be injurious to humans, animals, and plants. Follow the
directions and heed all precautions on the labels.
Store pesticides in original containers under lock and key-out of the reach of children and
animals-and away from food and feed.
Apply pesticides so that they do not endanger humans, livestock, crops, beneficial insects,
fish, and wildlife. Do not apply pesticides when there is danger of drift, when honey bees or
other pollinating insects are visiting plants, or in ways that may contaminate water or
leave illegal residues.
Avoid prolonged inhalation of pesticide sprays or dusts; wear protective clothing and equipment if specified on container.
If your hands become contaminated with a pesticide, do not eat or drink until you have
washed. In case a pesticide is swallowed or gets in your eyes, follow the first-aid treatment
given on the label, and get prompt medical attention. If a pesticide is spilled on your skin or
clothing, remove clothing immediately and wash skin thoroughly.
Do not clean spray equipment or dump excess spray material near ponds, streams, or wells.
Because it is difficult to remove all traces of herbicides from equipment, do not use the same
equipment for insecticides or fungicides that you use for herbicides.
Dispose of empty pesticide containers promptly according to Federal, State, and local laws
and regulations.
NOTE: Some States have restrictions on the use of certain pesticides. Check your State and
local regulations. Also, because registrations of pesticides are under constant review by the
Federal Environmental Protection Agency, consult your county agricultural agent or State
extension specialist to be sure the intended use is still registered.
48
Miller, James H.; Zutter, Bruce D.; Zedaker, Shepard M.; Edwards, M. Boyd; Newbold,
Ray A. 1995. A regional framework of early growth response for loblolly pine relative to
herbaceous, woody, and complete competition control-The COMProiect. Gen. Tech. Rep.
SO-117. New Orleans, LA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern
Forst Experiment Station. 48 p.
A common study design has been installed at 13 locations throughout the South to track
the growth of loblolly pine (Pinus taeo!u L.) plantations established with 4 different competition control treatments: no control (only chopping-burning), woody control for 5 years,
herbaceous control for 4 years, and total control atIer site preparation. This regionwide
investigation is known as the Competition Omission Monitoring Project (COMB), a coordinated study with the Auburn University Silvicultural Herbicide Cooperative (Study HB-4F).
Data summaries for each location are presented for loblolly pine growth and competition
intensities for the first 8 years. Approximately 10,990 loblolly pine seedlings have been
measured annually. Responses from this network of studies should be useful in assessing
and reporting relative growth of loblolly pines for other studies and operational plantings.
These data sets should be useful also for future forest growth modeling efforts.
Keywords: Forest, growth and yield modeling, herbicides, plant interference, roller-
drum chopping, silviculture, site preparation, vegetation management, weed control.
The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information
and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any
product or service.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,
age, disability, political beliefs, and marital or familial status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact the USDA Offke of Communications at (202)
720-2791.
To file a complaint, write the Secretary of Agriculture, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250, or call (202) 720-7327 (voice) or (202)
720-1127 (TDD). USDA is an equal employment opportunity employer.
United States
Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Southern Forest
Experiment Station
701 Loyola Ave., Rm.T-10210
New Orleans, LA 70113-1920
OFFICIAL BUSINESS
Penalty for Private Use $300